------ Lawn

The grift that keeps on grifting

2019-02-06T13:25:00.000-05:00

Back in November of 2017, we spent a couple of days examining former Mayor Eric Jackson's failed Trenton Resident Employment initiative. We outlined how there was nothing to show for the program or the money paid to Charles Hill, the consultant hired to shape and oversee the initiative. Should anyone be surprised to learn that all these months later, Mr. Hill still hasn't been made to answer for his blatant ripoff of the city?

To recap: in September of 2014, early in the Jackson administration, the council passed an ordinance creating the Trenton Employment Commission. The purpose of the commission was to meet monthly to oversee the Mayor's Trenton Resident Employment Initiative.

Thirteen months later, in October of 2015, the council passed a resolution authorizing a one year/$50,000.00 contract with Hill Consultants LLC and its principal, Charles Hill coordinate and implement the initiative.

We pointed out at that time very little work had been done; no one had been appointed to the commission; no meetings of the commission had been held; and Mr. Hill seemingly walked away after billing the city and being paid about $23,000.00 for his alleged work on the project.

It was also noted at the time that Mr. Hill appeared to have arbitrarily and unilaterally raised his hourly billing rate from $100 to $125 on the six invoices. He was paid the extra money and no one ever blinked an eye or raised a question.

Even after we published our findings and shared the same with the DCA and its Trenton "monitor", no one from the state, the administration or the city council bothered to inquire into what happened to the initiative or what did the city really receive for the money spent.

Well, as it turns out, the city did make at least a half-hearted attempt at clearing some of this up. On June 18, 2018, in the waning days of Mayor Jackson's term, the City of Trenton filed a complaint against Mr. Hill and Hill Consultants, LLC to recoup $4,750.00 in over payments to Mr. Hill, plus interest, court costs, attorney fees "and any further sums that the court may deem equitable and just."

Good, right?

Well, it would be except that the defendant was never served. It appears as though they tried to serve him at his business address in Trenton; a rented office long since vacated. We're guessing they didn't try to serve him at his last known residence address in Newtown, Pennsylvania. The address is right there in Hill's response to the city's original RFP. Surely they could refile the complaint to be served there.

Recovering $4,750.00 + in owed money will not come close to solving the city's fiscal woes, but it just might stop one more con from walking away with pockets lined with taxpayers funds.

For what it's worth

2018-06-06T11:04:00.003-04:00

Entry edited to clarify actual title holder of the property in question

"I must stress that this is very much a personal, not a political decision," Jackson said at the podium outside his City Hall office.

"I still believe I have much to contribute to Trenton's rebirth, but I believe my contributions will be greater outside the halls of City Hall and the mayor's office," he said. "I am grateful, eternally grateful to every resident for entrusting me with the responsibility of being mayor."

So said outgoing Trenton Mayor, Eric Jackson in Kevin Shea's Times article on January 26 of this year.

Well, we guess Jackson forgot to add "from outside of Trenton" to his statement.

Looks as though Jackson, like his one time employer and mentor, Doug Palmer, is ready to pack up and leave town once out of office. The soon-to-be former Mayor's Melrose Avenue home in the city's Villa Park neighborhood is on the market for $205,000.

Public records indicate that the house was purchased in 2007 by Denise Johnson, presumably, the now Mrs. Jackson, for $235,000.

Good luck getting that price.

And goodbye, Mr. Mayor.

Indicative

2018-03-21T10:00:00.003-04:00

It's the little things that matter

On Thursday, March 8, Mayoral Candidate and current At Large Councilman Alex Bethea opened his Campaign Headquarters at 201 Mulberry Street.

This seemed like an odd decision.

Mulberry Street is in the far northeast corner of the city. It's busy but not what we would consider a main artery and certainly not centrally located. In our long experience with Trenton municipal elections, Mayoral Campaign Headquarters were normally situated somewhere in or very nearby downtown, not some two miles away.

If the location isn't odd enough, here's another tidbit. Mr. Bethea chose a building where the landlord has been cited for various code violations. As recently as March 6, the property owner was issued summonses for violating the city housing code.

From documents obtained via OPRA request from the city, it appears as though an inspection was conducted by the city on March 5, 2018. At that time, the 2nd floor apartment was found to be occupied but there were no certificates of occupancy on file. The property also had a new electrical service that no permits had been issued for; and there were a variety of other violations.

And this isn't the only time the property owner has been cited. Back in July of 2017...just last summer...the city sent a letter instructing the property owner to remove the high vegetation and junk from the property.

One other thing we noticed when reviewing the documents...the non-occupant owner registration form shows the owner as an individual, Ms. Peggy Bellamy. However, public records indicate that the property is actually owned by her LLC, B & S Properties. Ms. Bellamy either failed to register the property correctly OR to record the transfer of title to from her LLC to her name. (And we won't comment on the couple of tax liens that have been issued on the property...one of which may still be active)

Good choice for a campaign headquarters, councilman.

Indicative of your thought processes.

"And this ordinance has been properly adopted."

2018-02-21T11:29:00.002-05:00

Edited on February 22 to include the response from the Municipal Clerk (see end of post)

Or has it?

At the January 16, 2018 meeting of Trenton's city council Ordinance 17-80 was up for it's second reading and public hearing. There were only four members of council present when the ordinance came up and the vote was three to one in favor. (Audio here)
Trenton's Municipal Clerk, Dwayne Harris, can clearly be heard saying after the vote, "And this ordinance has been properly adopted." (Audio here)

Except that is wasn't.

The exact same ordinance came up for reintroduction (first reading) on Thursday, February 15. How can this be?

Recap

From the moment that it first appeared on the council docket in early December of 2017, we argued against giving Mr. Torricelli more tax breaks for his project. Not surprisingly, the ordinance passed first reading at the December 7 meeting. The council members voting in favor of the introduction of Ordinance 17-80 were Mr. Bethea, Ms. Caldwell-Wilson, Mr. Chester, Mr. Harrison, and Ms. Reynolds-Jackson. Ms. Holly-Ward and Mr. Muschal were apparently absent as no vote was recorded from either of them.

The second reading was postponed from December 21 and rescheduled for January.

At the January 16 meeting, the ordinance was brought up for it's second reading. According to the audio (provided courtesy of Kevin Moriarty) of the meeting, there was no one present who wished to speak on the matter so the public hearing portion was closed. The ordinance was then brought forth for a vote. Council members Caldwell-Wilson, Chester and Holly-Ward voted in favor of granting the 10 year tax abatement. Councilman Muschal voted against. Council members Bethea, Harrison and Reynolds-Jackson were absent. The Clerk declared the ordinance adopted.

A couple of weeks later, we started hearing murmurings that something was up and the ordinance hadn't passed. Then, sure enough, Kevin Moriarty spotted an item on the docket for February 15.

How could this be?

We submitted an Open Public Records request to the municipal clerk asking for the ordinance, its effective date, any communications regarding why it may not have gone into effect, minutes of the meeting where it was adopted, etc.

What we got back was a copy of the ordinance with a large stamp across the front page noting that it had failed to be adopted on January 16.

While we received a copy of the minutes of the December 7 meeting at which Ordinance 17-80 was introduced, were not provided with the minutes of the January 16 meeting because (per the Deputy Clerk's note) they "have not been prepared."

We asked for information on exactly why the ordinance failed on January 16. Trenton's Municipal Clerk, Dwayne Harris, sent along the following information regarding why the ordinance was NOT adopted on January 16:

"Ordinance 17-80 failed upon second reading because it failed to obtain the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the council, which would be four, as required by NJSA 40:69A-180."

For those interested, here's the relevant part of the cited statute:

40:69A-180. Rules of procedure; quorum; ordinances and resolutions; presiding officer; compensation
(a) Council shall determine its own rules of procedure, not inconsistent with ordinance or statute. A majority of the whole number of members of the council shall constitute a quorum, but no ordinance shall be adopted by the council without the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the council.

The key phrase being "but no ordinance shall be adopted by the council without the affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the council".

On January 16, only four members were present for the vote. Three of them voted in the affirmative, one against. Three is less than a majority of the total membership of the governing body. The ordinance was therefore not adopted.

Mr. Harris notified Council of his error on January 17th and made a public announcement during the February 15th council meeting.

It's probably all moot as the matter will likely succeed in its second go around. But Trenton again experiences a procedural fail.

Just in time, the scene has changed

2018-02-13T14:39:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, we took a snapshot of the current field of candidates running for elected office in Trenton's May Municipal Elections and who had run previously. We gave a quick review of their filings with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission to spot any areas of concern.

Taking off from there, Kevin Moriarty yesterday looked a little more closely at some of the reporting errors he saw in forms filed by mayoral candidate Paul Perez.

Today, the picture has changed ever so slightly. It appears as though the rumblings are true and Councilman At Large Duncan Harrison, Jr. will be announcing his run for mayor this weekend.

The news of this announcement sent us right back to the NJ ELEC website to see what, if any, new filings had shown up since we last checked. Indeed, we found that Mr. Harrison had opened up a reporting channel for his new campaign for mayor this year by filing his D-1 designating his campaign treasurer and a depository for his funds.

OOPS! It looks as though Harrison is using the same depository (bank account) for his newly formed mayoral campaign committee as he used for his Council At Large campaign. Now, we may be getting down to splitting hairs here, but we don't think that is allowable. It certainly isn't desirable.

The NJ ELEC Compliance Manual for Candidates and Committees states on page 9:

C. Candidates for Two Different Offices

An individual who is a candidate for two or more offices in an election is required to establish separate candidate committees, or separate joint candidates committees, or both, for each office sought, and establish separate campaign depositories. {our emphasis}

Now, we realize that there must be quite a bit of activity going on in the Harrison camp as they switch gears from running for council to running for mayor. An entirely new set of paperwork must be filed, a new set of signed petitions collected and all with just a couple of weeks to go before the filing deadline. It is possible that the use of the same account number for the new depository was a mistake. Or maybe Mr. Harrison and his Treasurer were't aware of the separate depository rule.

As we noted yesterday, Mr. Harrison has not technically closed out his 2014 Council At Large election reports but he did appear to accurately report the left over funds as the starting balance of his 2018 council run. He will now need to properly close the reporting on both the 2014 and 2018 accounts as he begins the reporting on his 2018 mayoral run. Until he does that, it is our contention that he has two open committees for different offices (even though state law precludes him from actually running for election to both offices) and thus needs to have separate bank accounts.

Is past performance indicative of future results?

2018-02-12T06:00:00.000-05:00

Four years ago, then mayoral candidate Eric Jackson's campaign reporting irregularities were being pointed out. At that time, Jackson had failed to file his ELEC reports for the time period between the end of his 2010 campaign and the start of his 2014 run for office. It wasn't until it became a campaign issue that candidate Jackson played catch up and filed the back reports.

Unfortunately, his compliance was short lived. After winning the 2014 run off against Paul Perez, the newly elected mayor soon fell behind in his reporting. Even though he's been repeatedly reminded publicly, mostly by Kevin Moriarty through his blog, Jackson has continued to ignore the reporting requirements. As things turned out, non-compliance and lack of follow through are the hallmarks of Jackson's one term in office.

Looking ahead to this years municipal elections, we decided to review the ELEC filings of those candidates who have run before to see how compliant they are with the requirements. Sadly, it appears that some of the candidates are just as negligent as Jackson.

Let's start with some background. On page 48 of the Compliance Manual for Candidates you can find this chart.

It breaks things down pretty clearly as to what spending amount triggers which required forms to be filed. (For the sake of this article, when we say "candidate" we are speaking of a candidate for city council or mayor.}

A candidate spending nothing must still file an A-1 form.
A candidate spending up to $5,100 (note: the amount of this threshold has risen over the last couple of cycles) must file the A-1 and a D-1. Other forms may be required.
A candidate spending more than $5,100 must file the D-1 and the R-1. Other forms may be required.

In this review we are most concerned with the A-1, D-1 and R-1 forms. (NOTE: the forms for each candidate that are referenced can be found in a folder at this link or via the NJ ELEC website's searchable database.)

The A-1 form is a candidate's certification that the amount spent on the campaign will be $0 or not more than the threshold of $5,100. Any amount of money spent on a campaign (or even on pre-election or "testing the waters" activities) must be paid from a campaign account. Even if a candidate only spends his or her own money, they must open a campaign account, deposit the money in it and make all campaign related expenditures from it.

When a candidate creates a committee and opens a treasury (bank account), the D-1 form is filed. Records of all contributions and expenditures must be maintained. While the designated Treasurer or deputy treasurer of a campaign committee is required to make and maintain written records of all funds received and expended, it is the responsibility of the candidate to insure that proper record keeping and reporting are done. In other words, a candidate is not without blame for poorly maintained or improperly reported records or missing filings.

The R-1 form is used to detail contributions and expenditures on a quarterly and cumulative basis for those

Campaign reporting is done by election cycle. Page 10 of the manual explains it this way: For reporting purposes and for the purpose of computing contribution limits, an “election” begins with the receipt of the first contribution or the making of the first expenditure and concludes on the 17th day following the election.

At the end of an election cycle, the candidate is supposed to zero out their accounts and file a finalized report with ELEC. If there are funds leftover, the candidate is supposed to roll them over into the next election cycle, thus filing any required forms and quarterly reports until such a time as the funds are spent down, the account zeroed out and a final report filed. (See pages 12 - 13 of the candidate reporting manual)

Executive Summary

Looking over the field of candidates, we see that five of the announced mayoral candidates have run for municipal office before: Alex Bethea, Darren Green, Annette Lartigue, Paul Perez and Walker Worthy. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora obviously has run for office before and currently maintains his reporting for his Assembly campaigns as well as having filed a D-1 for his Mayoral campaign.

Lartigue and Worthy each had a little a money left, but stopped filing reports. Perez had money left in his 2014 account that has not been accounted for in his 2018 reports so far. Bethea and Gusciora are basically up to date, although Bethea seems to be missing some pages on his initial report for the 2018 election. Green had filed an A-1 in 2010 certifying he would spend under the then threshold of $4000 and we assume he spent what he had raised and closed the account. (The ELEC manual is not clear on how that kind of situation should be handled. As concerned citizens, we would prefer a candidate file a final R-1 closing the depository just to be clear.)

Three of the candidates for council at large have run before: Sherwood Brown, incumbent Duncan Harrison and Lee Ingram.

Mr. Brown closed out his 2014 depository and has filed nothing for the 2018 cycle as yet. Harrison did not formally close out his 2014 filings but he did carry the balance forward into his reporting for 2018. Ingram filed an A-1 certification in 2014 and no D-1. That would indicate that he never opened a campaign depository and thus spent $0 on his campaign. That is unusual but possible. He has filed a D-1 this time, an indication he plans to raise and spend at least a little money.

The four incumbent ward council persons ~~are~~ were all running again: Marge Caldwell Wilson, George Muschal, Verlina Reynolds Jackson, and Zac Chester. (As we were preparing this report, Verlina Reynolds Jackson was tapped to fill the Assembly seat vacated by Liz Muoio. Because of the prohibition of dual office holding, Verlina has to resign her council seat. This DOES NOT exempt her from having to file the reports correctly.)

Marge Caldwell-Wilson's 2014 accounts were properly closed. Her initial R-1 for 2018 has errors. George Muschal's filings are complete and up to date. Reynolds Jackson's last 2014 report showed a balance that is less than the starting balance of her first 2018 report. There is no recorded carry over from a prior campaign. Zac Chester's balance in his last 2014 report is the same as his starting balance in his 2018 report but, again, they don't show it as being carried over from a prior campaign.

Mayor

Sitting councilman at large Alex Bethea filed his final report for his council reporting on 1/17/18. The filing only contains the last page and shows a balance of $2,999.56 He has not filed a new D1 for the 2018 election cycle. His treasurer, his wife Gloria, did note on the summary page the correct starting balance for the new cycle and that it was transferred from a prior election. Not perfect but at least there is an accounting of some sort for the funds.

Candidate Darren Green last ran for a council at large seat in 2010. He filed an A-1 form certifying he would not spend over the reporting threshold ($4,000 at that time). He has filed a D-1 for the current election cycle.

Assemblyman Gusciora has a zero balance in his Assembly campaign committee and filed his new D-1 for the 2019 primary (the next election cycle for that seat). He has also filed his D-1 for the mayoral campaign in Trenton.

Former West Ward councilwoman Annette Horton Lartigue ran for Mayor in 2010. Her last report on file is from June of that year and shows a balance of $3,527.01. It was not marked as a final filing and there have been no subsequent quarterly reports filed detailing what has happened with that money. She has filed her D-1 for the 2018 Mayoral race but doesn't show a bank account or name a treasurer yet.

Paul Perez lost the runoff election to Eric Jackson in June of 2014. He last filed a report for that campaign account in July 11 of that year and showed a balance of $1,421.49. It was not marked as his final report. Perez filed his D-1 and two R-1s for the 2018 mayoral run in October of 2017. He has a new treasurer and a new campaign account at a different branch of the same bank.

The first Perez R-1 for the 2018 election cycle does not indicate what happened to the prior balance of $1,421.49. The new reporting starts with a $200.00 contribution on the first page and shows no money transferred from the prior election. On the Schedule A, it shows that the $200 was a cash contribution from the candidate dated May 15 of last year, presumably to open the bank account.

The manual states that contributions must be deposited in the campaign depository within 10 days of receipt. (Page 17). If the money was received and deposited in May, there should have been a D-1 filed within 10 days of the receipt of the contribution and an R-1 filed by July 15. On the summary page it states that the starting balance was zero and that the only money received was the $200. This leaves open the question of "what happened to the $1,421.49 in the old account?"

Rounding out the mayoral candidates is Walker Worthy. Worthy also ran for mayor in 2014. The last report his campaign filed was on January 14, 2016. It showed a balance in the account of $384.00 and was not marked as his final report. Nothing has been filed since, which is a little disheartening considering the candidate is the Deputy County Clerk and should know better.

Council At Large

Sherwood Brown ran for the West Ward seat in 2014. He filed his final report for that election cycle in June of that year and had a zero balance. He has yet to file anything with NJ ELEC for the 2018 election cycle.

Duncan Harrison is an incumbent at large council member. His report filed in November of 2017 showed a balance of $2,331.19 in his campaign depository and the R-1 was not marked as final. His February 2, 2018 filing did not indicate any carry over from the prior campaign in the proper places but it did show the starting balance the same as the ending balance of the previous report so at least the funds were somewhat accounted for. Harrison has also filed for an auxiliary campaign depository, perhaps related to his rumored consideration to change his mind and run for mayor instead of council at large.

Lee Ingram ran for an at large seat on council in 2014. He filed an A-1 certifying he would spend less than the $4,500 quarterly reporting threshold for the election. He never filed a D-1 designating a treasurer or a depository. This indicates he spent no money on his campaign or, if he did, he didn't understand the filing requirement of the D-1. He has filed a D-1 for the 2018 election.

Ward Council

North Ward councilwoman Marge Caldwell-Wilson has changed treasurers with each election cycle. Her 2014 election cycle reporting was wrapped up on June 22, 2016 with a final report showing a zero balance. Her D-1 for the 2018 election cycle was filed in July of 2016 but her first quarterly report that cycle doesn't appear to have been filed until October of 2017.

That report shows one deposit of $200.00 but it doesn't give any indication of who contributed or when. The line where one would report any transfer from a prior campaign shows zero on both the first and last pages. On the final page, it is stated that there was an opening balance of $4594.54 and the $200 contribution. There are two disbursements reported totaling $3,168.49. When you subtract those disbursements from the $4,794.54 on hand, the remaining balance should be $1,626.05. However, the report shows an ending balance of $3,368.49. It appears as though the Treasurer erroneously added the deposited contribution to the disbursement total.

Long-time South Ward councilman George Muschal is unique in that he and his wife completely fund his campaign themselves. He filed an A-1 in July, 2009 certifying that he would not spend over the then threshold of $4,000 and thus he doesn't have to report back on the details of any expenditures. Technically, he could probably just file a new A-1 with each election cycle and be done with it. Instead, he files quarterly R-1s showing his cash on hand...more than is required.

As noted above, Verlina Reynolds Jackson will be leaving her East Ward council seat a few months early to move to the NJ Assembly representing the 15th district. The last report she filed for the 2014 election cycle was in May of that year. She showed a balance of $2,085.05 and it was not marked as her final report for that cycle. The next report she filed was in October of 2014 and it was marked for the 2018 election cycle. She did not indicate any money carried over from the prior election cycle on the report but she noted a starting balance of $3,418.35, $660.17 in expenditures and a closing balance of $2,758.68. We're not sure why, but Reynolds Jackson filed successive D-1s for the 2018 election cycle.

Council President and West Ward councilman Zac Chester has left the date of the election cycle of some reports. His last 2014 R-1 appears to have been filed in July of 2017. It was not marked final and it showed a balance of $3,038.19. His next R-1, filed in October of 2017, was marked for the 2018 election cycle. It's staring balance was the same $3,038.19 but there was no indication of money carried over from a prior election.

If you've made it this far through this exercise, we applaud you. You have shown more diligence than some of the candidates.

It is disturbing to us that individuals seeking positions of responsibility and oversight for the budget of the city of Trenton seem to have trouble with reporting their own campaign finances. Any of the errors and omissions outlined above are rectifiable by the filing of amended or missing reports.

Voters have to ask themselves if they want to or should support candidates who don't seem to have a problem failing to get the details of campaign reporting correct, if they bother to file at all.

As recent history has shown us, the inability and/or unwillingness of those seeking (and in many cases, holding) public office to pay attention and adhere to the reporting requirements might just be an indicator of poor performance on the job.

Caveat emptor!

Pessimistically Optimistic

2018-02-08T16:47:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection announced they had issued an Administrative Consent Order regarding the Trenton Water Works. The ACO outlines definitive steps and deadlines for improvements, operations, and staffing of the water utility. Failure to meet the deadlines will leave the city open to fines.

The troubles at TWW have been well documented by Kevin Moriarty and the local press. In the past week the governing bodies of both Trenton and Hamilton have had special presentations/discussions about the ongoing issues. Yet there still seems to be a lot of misinformation out there. (Some of which is due to the city of Trenton's inability and/or unwillingness to communicate clearly with the TWW customer base as well as public officials in the towns served by the utility).

We heard more than one public official say that would like transparency with regards to the budget of the Trenton Water Works. Well, the water budget is available on line as part of the City of Trenton budget. Unfortunately, some of the numbers are not readable because, for space reasons the cells are not large enough to contain the entire sum. However, the key information is there, especially the amount of the anticipated and realized surpluses each year.

With a realized surplus of $12 million for fiscal year 2017, it is obvious that there is money available for staffing, maintenance and improvements.

There is confusion about the city's residency requirement for employees. Let's be real clear right and here and now, the residency ordinance was amended in October of 2014 to allow a "waiver for exceptional persons".

Chapter 2. AdministrationArticle XVI. Officers and Employees ...
§ 2-95. Residence requirements; exception; waiver. D. Waiver for exceptional persons. Whenever the hiring authority of the City of Trenton shall determine that there are certain specific positions and employments requiring special talents or skills which are necessary for the operations of the City of Trenton and which are not likely to be found among the residents of the City, such positions or employments so determined shall be filled without reference to residency. This provision shall be used for positions or employments for (1) officers that are subject to the advice and consent of the City Council and (2) positions requiring persons with scientific or technical licenses or certifications required by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Division of Community Affairs or any other state governing agency.
[Amended 10-2-2014 by Ord. No. 14-33]

It is obvious that the intent of the amendment was to allow the city to hire form outside of the city the licensed individuals necessary for the proper operation of the TWW. And, it was done in the first few months of the failed Jackson administration.

If the residency waiver was in effect, why have so many technical positions been left unfilled?

One answer, based upon the testimony heard at last week's Trenton city council meeting, was that the city was bad about responding to/following up with applicants. One individual stated she never heard back from the city; not even a "thank you, no" letter. Nothing!

The administration offered the excuse that the salaries being offered "were not competitive". Well, if you are operating the utility with a surplus but your salaries are not competitive, maybe you should increase those salaries. Is it that hard?

A third issue is that, until recently, the advertising of the vacancies seemed to be sparse and sporadic at best. We heard that open positions were not currently posted on the city website and a suggestion to hang a "Now Hiring" banner on the filtration plant ignored. You aren't going to get many applicants if they don't know there are openings.

Taken altogether, it appears less that the city was unable to hire people and more like it didn't put any real effort into hiring people.

The ACO has set benchmarks for hiring critical personnel and recent contracts issued to Wade Trim for contract employees to fill some of the vacancies are a start. With increased staffing of professionals, we would expect to see a return to normal, proper operations.

Timely notification of customers about events potentially affecting have been another complaint heard over and over. The DEP has recognized that TWW's Emergency Action Plan is deficient and is demanding it be updated to eliminate those deficiencies. In a February 7 article in the Trentonian, Hamilton mayor, Kelly Yaede, complained that TWW still has up to 24 hours to notify customers.

“The neighboring municipalities should receive the notification within 60 minutes,” the Hamilton mayor said. “When you’re dealing a public health crisis, particularly dealing with quality drinking water, notification is key. In this day and age of social media, getting information out quickly, timliness is imperative.”

As we pointed out in a previous entry, that is the maximum time that Federal regulations for a Tier 1 (Immediate Notice) event to be communicated to the customers. We have to assume that the new policies and procedures to be adopted by TWW aren't going to tell employees to wait the full day before notification. We'd expect something along the lines of "should be notified as soon as possible but not more than 24 hours after an event occurred."

While many are still dubious about the ability of Trenton to professionally manage the utility, the ACO lays out a pretty straightforward road map of what needs to be done and by one. To help keep things on course, TWW must file monthly progress reports with DEP until all items have been completed. The reports are due to be submitted on the last day of each month, unless said date falls on a weekend. In that case, the reports are due on the first business day of the new month. There are fines for each day the reports are late. A prior ACO required "quarterly progress reports" be we are not sure if any were filed.

To help restore confidence in TWW, we believe it would be best if the city made those reports public at the time of submission to DEP. In this way, the customers and all of the public officials can track progress along with the DEP. If things get off track, public pressure can be brought to bear and the situation corrected sooner rather than later.

We feel this new ACO is both a positive first step and a last chance warning for TWW, Trenton's governing body and mayor now and going forward.

We're pessimistically optimistic

It's gonna be interesting...

2018-02-07T10:24:00.001-05:00

Trenton's Municipal Elections are scheduled for Tuesday, May 8, 2018. As with the last few election cycles, it looks like the makings for a full three-ring circus. For sure, the sideshows have started arriving and setting up shop.

Managing an election from the city side is no easy task. It falls to the Municipal Clerk's office to see that candidates who meet qualifications such as residency and voter registration complete the proper paperwork. Those who make that first cut are then issued petitions to be signed by registered voters in the district (ward or city wide) that the candidate wishes to represent.

Those petitions have to be turned into the clerk for certification and counting. Each petition has to match the voter registration lists. Since voters can only sign one petition for each office (except Council At Large, where each voter can sign up to three petitions) the lists have to be cross checked for duplicates. (First petition in, counts. Subsequent ones do not).

It's a lot of work.

But, sometimes, the Clerk's office doesn't do much to help itself. We should all remember the screw up in 2014 when then clerk Richard Kachmar used the wrong formula to calculate the number of required petitions for each office, resulting in a lower threshold. We're sure the current clerk and staff are being extremely careful this time around.

Or are they.

Every couple of weeks since January, we've requested copies of the candidate registration forms from the clerk's office. This has been an attempt to keep up with the entrants in this year's horse race.

Here are the links to the certificates we have obtained so far:
First batch, second batch, third batch, Gusciora (omitted from third batch by clerk's office)

The form lists the name of the candidate; their address; office sought; number of petitions issued (usually a few over the required amount); deadline for turning the petitions in. This year, that deadline is 4 pm on Monday, March 5.
Imagine our surprise when we reviewed Mayoral Candidate Reed Gusciora's form and noted the stated deadline read, "4:00 pm, Monday March 6, 2018."

This sent us back to all the other registration forms we'd received so far. All of them read correctly, Monday March 5, except one. That was for Council At Large candidate Elvin Montero.

Now, it is a silly little mistake, but...this form is (or should be) a template. In fact, it was, per the date in the lower left corner, created in February of 2010. So it has been used for three election cycles. Why hasn't the deadline date been "fixed" in the current template so that this kind of mistake doesn't have a chance of occurring? (Considering the issues that the Trenton Water Works seems to have with templates for their advisories...maybe it is a city hall custom?)

We've noticed one other little glitch in candidate documentation coming out of the clerk's office. Kevin Moriarty received a listing of candidates and the amount of petitions they had turned in so far, Assemblyman Gusciora was noted as running for the West Ward Council seat rather than Mayor.

Oh...it's going to be an interesting few months, folks.

Water this, water that.

2018-02-03T11:53:00.001-05:00

“Water this, water that,” City of Trenton spokesman Michael Walker said in response to an email query about Trenton Water Works from the Post.

So reports Rob Anthes in a very good article in the February edition of the Hamilton Post. Anthes highlights the recent issues at Trenton's water utility that serves some quarter of a million people in Mercer County.

This past Thursday night Trenton's Public Works Director, Merkle Cherry, and key members of the TWW staff presented an update for the city council. The hope was that the city's governing body and the public alike would come out of that meeting with a fuller understanding of what the situation actually is at the water utility.

Unfortunately, that presentation came up woefully short. Kevin Moriarty blogged about the meeting on Friday. Basically, it consisted of a brief power point presentation, a Q & A between members of the council and the water works team, and then public comment.

It lasted 3.5 hours (council then had to go on to their regular business afterwards) and what was learned was that Mr. Cherry has a less than firm grasp on the operations of TWW. We also learned that some of the long time staff who work day to day in the utility don't have a much better grasp of how things work there than Cherry does. That was a huge disappointment.

The lack of investment in the utility and the lack of staff definitely contributes to the marked increase in citations of non-compliance issued by DEP. That's certain. The lack of communication... effective, timely communication... between the city/TWW and its customers is the one thing that came up time and time again during the discourse.

One of the big complaints has been the length of time between when an "event" occurs and the public is notified. City representatives have continually sworn that they were delayed in issuing notices because they were waiting for DEP to approve the language in the advisories before sending them out.

Strangely, in the same breath, there is always mention of "templates" that exist for the notices.

It's hard to fathom how, if there is an existing template for, say, a boil water advisory, there has to be approval from a state agency before the notice can be sent out. That sort of defeats the whole purpose of having a template, doesn't it?

Curious about this, we spent some time wading around in the DEP website. There is a lot of information available to the public there. Granted, you might have to be a bit of a nerd or wonk to delve into this stuff, but it is there for the curious.

The following is based upon a couple of hours of browsing, following links, reading and, yes, THINKING about how one handles events that adversely effect the quality of water service. We are not licensed plant operators; we have not taken any classes in water supply operations or management. We're just reasonably intelligent parties interested in what the process is; how it is supposed to work; and trying to figure why it seems to continually break down when it comes to TWW.

If we miss something or make faulty statements and anyone can point us to accurate information countering our incorrect assumptions, we welcome the correction. We're trying to educate ourselves and our readers as to what is the right way to handle these things.

Water quality regulation and enforcement in New Jersey falls under the Department of Environmental Protection, division of Water Supply and Geoscience. From the division's page, there are various links under "Drinking Water Systems; Emergencies & Security. There's a lot of information available to anyone who wants to poke around awhile.

As stated right on the page, a water utility has to report an emergency to DEP within six (6) hours. There is a 24 hour hotline just for such purposes. There are also required follow ups with the engineering office during normal work hours and a form that must be completed an emailed to DEP.

The incident form includes a section about notifications on the second page.

The first question asked is "Has the appropriate water use advisory been issued?" Now, if this form is what is used to record and track an incident with DEP and DEP must be notified within six hours of the event, doesn't it seem likely that there is an expectation that notifications to the public, et al were made sooner rather than later?

There are links on the page to templates for various advisories pertaining to water main breaks. The templates are right there in a very user friendly form (Microsoft Word). The utility just has to fill in the event specific information and distribute.

But what about non-water main break related events?

Further down on the page are links to "Water Use Advisory Information".

Within that grouping is a link to a 166 page document that is a clearly written and organized EPA Drinking Water Advisory Comprehensive Toolbox. It is filled with very good, common sense ideas about how to prepare for, execute and follow up on the issuing of an event advisory. The document includes fill-in-the-blank templates, in English and Spanish. The document is so comprehensive that after reading it we feel confident that we could effectively execute the issuing of an advisory. Certainly, if anyone from TWW and/or the City of Trenton had there would not be the continual issues with fumbled notifications.

There are other resources on that section of the page. The three main types of advisories are described:

Advisories:

Boil Water Advisory: Advises customers to boil the water before drinking, cooking, and other potable water uses due to the potential for the water supply to be contaminated with disease-causing microorganisms.
Do Not Drink Advisory: Advises customers not to use the water supply for potable purposes and only advocates its use for sanitary and fire-fighting needs.
Do Not Use Advisory: Advises customers not to use the water supply for any purpose, including sanitary and fire-fighting needs.

There are also more links to templates and handbooks:

Guidance & Templates

EPA Public Notification Handbooks:

Public Notification Templates
EPA Drinking Water Advisory Communication Toolbox - provides information on how to plan for, develop, implement, and evaluate drinking water advisories.

Obviously, there is a wealth of material available to help a water supply system effectively communicate about any event that adversely affects the potability of the water.

Earlier on we established that NJ DEP must be notified within six (6) hours of an event. Diving deeper into the subject we discovered EPA guidelines (linked to from the DEP site, so we assume these are the operative standards in New Jersey) for three levels of notifications.

You'll note that in Tier 1 (Immediate Notice) events water suppliers have 24 hours to notify {our emphasis} people who may drink the water. TWENTY FOUR HOURS!

That seems like a long time. We assume because the guidelines are applicable to systems of all sizes in densely populated areas as well as sparsely populated ones, the federal standards are somewhat generous. We also assume that common sense dictates system operators would get the notice out as soon as possible, well within the 24 hour deadline.

We feel it is important to note here that at no time has TWW made the argument that their delayed notifications have fallen within the allowable 24 hour time period. Rather, they keep falling back on the excuse of having to wait for DEP approval of the text and/or translation into Spanish...EVEN THOUGH TEMPLATES FOR BOTH EXIST AND ARE AVAILABLE! In addition, for all of our fishing in the rules and regulations we have yet to land any evidence that DEP requires approval of the verbiage of advisories prior to them being released.

We have also found, repeated, reference to the 10 items that must be included in an advisory:

Notices must contain:

A description of the violation that occurred, including the contaminant(s) of concern, and the contaminant level(s);

When the violation or situation occurred;

The potential health effects (including standard required language);

The population at risk, including subpopulations vulnerable if exposed to the contaminant in their drinking water;

Whether alternate water supplies need to be used;

What the water system is doing to correct the problem;

Actions consumers can take;

When the system expects a resolution to the problem;

How to contact the water system for more information; and

Language encouraging broader distribution of the notice.

Anyone with basic English composition skills and the required information at hand should be able to craft an acceptable advisory notice in less than hour without a template. With a template, the notice should be ready for distribution within minutes. Not hours. No external approvals required!

From what we have found, it is readily apparent that the failures of TWW to notify customers in a timely manner originate internally. Whether it is due to the acknowledged shortage of qualified staff, management indifference or both doesn't really matter.

What does matter is that they are failing to execute critical responsibilities. Instead of pointing fingers to outside agencies, they need to look at their own processes and procedures and fix them. Immediately.

Deja Vu All Over Again

2018-01-27T23:35:00.000-05:00

Trenton mayor Eric Jackson made it official yesterday. He will not run for a second term.

We weren't even going to post about this somewhat anticlimactic announcement from the failed first term mayor. His tenure in office has been marked by failures and missteps on a regular basis. After being literally missing in action for at least a month and not having filed his paperwork to run in May's municipal election three weeks into January the announcement came as no surprise to Trenton city hall watchers.

If you are really interested, you read Jackson's statement as posted on the city website here.

The key parts of Jackson's statement are that he's done what he set out to do in office and that he making this decision was personal, not political.

And so today, after four years of hard work, four years of renewed energy and vibrancy, four years of reform, four years of growth and four years of positive transformation, I am here to announce that my work as mayor is complete and that I will not seek a second term as mayor.

As with my decision to run for mayor, I made this decision after great consideration. And I must stress that this is very much a personal, not political, decision. I still believe I have much to contribute to Trenton’s rebirth, but I now believe that my contributions will be greater outside of City Hall than from the Mayor’s Office. I am grateful to every resident for entrusting me with the responsibility of leading our city and very proud of all we’ve accomplished together. Now that the City has been restored to fiscal stability and put on a path to economic prosperity and greater public safety for all residents, I will look forward to continuing that work.

Jackson was often labeled "Palmer 2.0" or "Palmer Lite" by detractors. A reference to the 20 year mayor under whom Jackson served as Director of Public Works. The image of a clone administration was enhanced somewhat by Jackson's choice to fill his cabinet with other former-Palmer administration stalwarts.

Even in announcing his decision to not run again, Jackson echoed what Doug had said just over 8 years ago. On December 9, 2009, we posted this in response to Doug's announcement that he wouldn't run again:

Citing a decision made in concert with family and a desire to leave on his own terms (not get voted out), Palmer stated he was comfortable with the accomplishments of his 19+ years in office.

Palmer vowed to continue working hard during the last seven months of his term and hand his successor a Trenton in better shape than what it was in 1990. He clicked off some of his notable achievements: lowered crime rate, increased housing/home ownership opportunities, economic development.

There is one other similarity between the two.

Their decision to not run again made a lot of people happy.

Another strike against Jackson

2018-01-15T18:05:00.003-05:00

It's not funny anymore.

The situation with Trenton Water Works is bad, but the issue of poor communication from the administration of Trenton Mayor Eric Jackson is way out of control.

The latter compounds the former.

Today, Trenton's water utility experienced another issue with poor quality resulting in a boil water advisory for customers in Trenton and parts of Ewing and Hamilton.

It was the NJ DEP who called for the boil water advisory and who, ultimately, got the word out. Trenton's communication mechanism was apparently paralyzed by the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.

As word spread, first on social media, then via newspaper articles posted online, then a notice sent out by the Hamilton Township municipal government, there was nothing from the City of Trenton.

No robocalls, although several had been sent out reminding residents of no trash pick up today.
No posting on the city website until way after the fact.

This begs the question, yet again, #WheresEric?

The problems with the utility have been well documented elsewhere. It is unfathomable that a man who spent a good chunk of his career with responsibility, first as Public Works Director and later as Mayor, of the TWW couldn't get a handle on the issues even a little bit.

There have been problems with staffing for years and Trenton's residency requirement for employees was often cited as a problem. In 2014, Trenton's city council passed amendments to the ordinance that allowed the city hire from outside the city boundaries if need be. Still, TWW has been cited as being woefully understaffed.

Trenton was ordered to make cover and make other improvements to its reservoir. The money is there, yet the work has not been done.

The state Department of Environmental Protection, citing the city's continued failure to properly staff and manage the utility, told them to move ahead with contracting for an outside operator to take over.

That hasn't been done.

With each repeated failure of the water treatment plant, customers wait for information and advisories from the city. And wait. And wait.

The mayor is an "experienced" government officer who sold himself to voters as someone who could "hit the ground running" and successfully handle the running of Trenton. He's brought back lots of equally "experienced" city hall veterans as division and department directors. And he has well paid public information officer. Yet Jackson and company are incredibly tight-lipped when there's a problem with the drinking water supply (or missing employment tax funds or any other negative issue). If team Jackson communicates anything at all, it is late and lacking pertinent details.

Just look at today's notices posted on three municipal websites about the water issues:

Here's Ewing's notice to residents:

Hamilton posted this one:

And Trenton, finally...well after the fact...put up this very spartan announcement.

Finally, just a mere 12 hours after first becoming aware of the problem, the city of Trenton utilized its robocall system to contact TWW customers.

It certainly shows that the first term mayor and his hand chosen team are not up to the task of running a water utility or a city; and certainly not both.

How can the mayor say he's working on economic development when he can't communicate? How can he claim to be making Trenton a better place to work and live when he can't safeguard the water supply? How can anyone feel good about investing in, moving a business to or residing in a city run by a bunch of mute misfits?

It remains to be seen if Jackson is going to run for a second term. As of a week ago, he had not filed his campaign paperwork. And we know he hasn't kept up with his finance reports from the 2014 campaign.

If he does run, there isn't a single voter in Trenton who should give up his or her vote to this failed mayor.

If he doesn't run let us hope he isn't given an appointment in the administration of incoming governor Phil Murphy. We can't think of any one less qualified for a continued government paycheck.

And, if Jackson doesn't run, voters would be well advised to not vote for any candidate or slate that gets a Jackson endorsement.

Eric E. Jackson has failed Trenton and it is time for the voters to fail him.

Where's Eric?

2018-01-10T12:49:00.001-05:00

In the kerfuffle surrounding last week's notice to Trenton Water Works rate payers that there had yet again been issues with the quality of the water, Trenton's Mayor was absent. Sure, there was the official notice about the high rate of haloacetic acid 5 (dated December 26, 2017 but not slated for release until January 5, 2018. Huh?!?!?). But where was Eric Jackson?

As the 2018 Municipal Election season (aka "silly season") ramps up, we acquired a list of campaign registration sheets from Trenton's Municipal Clerk. Among the 18 people who have filed to run in the May election, there are four challengers for the Mayor's seat. But where is Eric?

We started asking around. Nobody has really seen or directly heard from the mayor in a couple of weeks. He didn't hold a Christmas party for his (still NON-tax exempt) foundation, Moving Trenton Together.

He still hasn't turned in any of the missing quarterly NJ ELEC finance reports for the past three years.

Where is Eric Jackson?

One tidbit we did turn up. Apparently, Mayor Jackson's health hasn't been great. And for that, we are truly sorry. At this time, we have unverified reports that Jackson had some issues with blood clots, possibly in his legs. This is no laughing matter and is reported to have resulted in the Mayor being hospitalized at Capital Health Medical Center in Hopewell. And if it is not the first occurrence of this condition, how well is it being managed?

First and foremost, we hope that Mayor Eric Jackson recovers from this serious medical condition and continues to do what needs to be done to ensure there are no future setbacks.

However, if he has really been out of commission, did he notify the city council? Did he hand over day to day authority to a deputy or acting mayor?

With all of the issues the capital city is experiencing, shouldn't the public be entitled to know if the mayor duly elected to serve them is incapacitated? Should he decide to file his paperwork and run again in this spring's election, wouldn't it be good to know if he is healthy enough to serve the full term?

And, lastly, what does it say about the man's performance in office thus far if he can be out of commission, hospitalized, and no one knows or asks...

...Where's Eric?

Just vote NO!

2017-12-21T06:14:00.000-05:00

Tonight, Thursday, December 21, 2017, the Trenton City Council will meet. On the docket is the second reading and public hearing of Ordinance 17-80. If passed, this ordinance authorizes Mayor Eric Jackson to enter into an agreement with Woodrose Properties Golden Swan Urban Renewal LLC for a long term (10 years) tax abatement.

Woodrose Properties Golden Swan Urban Renewal LLC is one of several property holding companies owned by former Senator Robert Torricelli. We've covered this before (most recently here) but we feel it is important to recap the matter once again before tonight's vote.

The property in question is located at the corner of Front and S. Warren Streets in downtown Trenton. Formerly known as "the Caola properties", the city acquired it in 2001 through condemnation for $164,000. Woodrose then acquired it from the city for $1 in 2005.

Interestingly, in a Trentonian newspaper report from January 2005, then Mayor Doug Palmer told reporter Charles Webster that...

"Torricelli told us he's not looking at state leases, AND HE DOESN'T WANT ANY CITY MONEY OR TAX ABATEMENTS." {emphasis mine}

That very same article reports that the city of Trenton "will replace the roof and provide other upgrades." Additionally, it was stated that "a back portion of the building was removed" to stabilize the structure.

By March of 2005, the city was in negotiations with Torricelli about a possible tax abatement. In a March 4, 2005 article in the Times, Eva Loayza wrote:

"[City Assistant Business Administrator Dennis] Gonzalez said the city is still negotiating whether to give Woodrose a short-term tax abatement or start tax payments right away."

As it turns out, the city did grant the developer a five year tax abatement where it would only pay 15 percent of gross revenues rather than the full taxes. (We estimate that the tax abatement ran for five years from as early as October of 2007 until the end of 2012).

The city also awarded $202,425 in Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) funds to cover "cost overruns". Both were reported in a December 8, 2007 article in the Times. (The city also granted $89,000 UEZ funds to another Torricelli project around the corner on W. State Street that same year).

Now, Torricelli wants to convert the office space in the building to more residential and he wants to make improvements to the HVAC system. The total project cost is estimated at about $230,500 and should take about four months.

Other than the short-term construction jobs, there will be no increase in employment associated with this project. The developer claims there is a demand for residential space downtown but the information provided with the proposed ordinance shows nothing to back that up.

And the council, so far, has not asked any probing questions about the application. In fact, when it was discussed at the council conference session on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, only Councilman Bethea asked about it. He wanted to know how long the abatement would be for (10 years) and how much the city would get.

Director of Housing and Economic Development Diana Rogers gave bare bones answers, merely explaining that the taxes paid would be based on a formula. The exchange between the two of them took an entire two and half minutes.(about 21:33 in the audio linked above) Two and one half minutes to discuss a 10 year tax abatement! (Compare that to the 15 minutes or so spent talking about an proposed BUT TABLED ordinance that would revise how the city towing contracts are handled!).

The formula, per the developer's application would be a 10 year tax abatement based on 10% of the annual revenue of the finished project minus a deduction for a vacancy rate. As proposed, the annual net income of the project would be $13,404.80 and if the abatement is granted, the city would receive $14,340 per year in taxes for the life of the abatement. If income on the project doesn't meet that projection, the taxes paid to the city would be less; if the income is higher, the taxes paid would be more.

If we were sitting on council, our vote would be an emphatic "NO". The developer has utilized the generosity of the taxpayers in the city of Trenton for over a decade. In fact, in his little address to the council on December 5, Mr. Torricelli touted how he hopes there will be more tax credits coming so he can do other development projects in the city (specifically his now surface parking lot across from the Transit Center).

Mr. Torricelli knows very well how to play the system. He'd adept at using other people's money to meet his ends. It's time for him to pay his own way.

Get your hands out of our pockets!

2017-12-05T00:04:00.002-05:00

Did you have one of those friends in college who, whenever a group of you were out together, either left his wallet in the dorm or was a little short or had some other excuse why he or she couldn't pay their share for the night's entertainment? And they always promised they'd make it up to you if you could just take care of their portion of the bill this time?

We kind of get that feeling all over again when we read through the documents that comprise Ordinance 17-80 on this week's Trenton City Council Docket. Approval of this ordinance would grant Woodrose Properties Golden Swan Urban Renewal LLC a ten year tax abatement for the property at 101 South Warren Street.

Previously, we filled you in on some of the history of the property...how the city has bent over backwards for the owner, Woodrose Properties. And we also noted how Woodrose's principal, former Senator Robert Torricelli, has had no problem contributing money to the campaigns of past and present mayors and council members in the city of Trenton.

Let's take a little deeper dive into the Torricelli/Woodrose request for the tax abatement.

On page three of Attachment "A" of the ordinance, the developer describes the proposed project as a
"substantial rehabilitation improvement and conversion of the existing mixed-use building."

In essence, the building owner wants to update the HVAC system and convert the current commercial office space on the upper floors to residential space. The ground floor retail is currently occupied by a Subway sandwich shop (the "restaurant") and a dental office which opened in September of this year.

A little further down in the package, the developer estimates $181,000 in construction costs, $45,000 for professional fees and a marketing/advertising cost of $4,500. This brings the entire cost to $230,500. And the work is anticipated to take 4 months.

They are asking the city to grant a 10 year tax abatement of 10% of the estimated annual revenue of the finished project minus a deduction for a vacancy rate. Per the calculations in the application, the annual net income of the project would be $143,404.80 and the city, if the abatement is granted would receive $14,340 a year in taxes.

Here's what has left us scratching our heads. The developer states in the application that...

...based upon the occupancy of the existing apartments...and the location in downtown Trenton (near multiple State Offices and private offices) ...there is a strong demand for market-rate apartments....

OK. If, and that is a big if, there is a strong demand for market-rate apartments, why are they calculating on a vacancy rate? Are they just being conservative in the figuring?

We happen to know someone with rental properties just a block away from the Golden Swan. We asked him about this alleged "strong demand" for market-rate apartments. He suggested that, based upon his experience with his two buildings, the assumption was not true. Our friend admitted that he hasn't under taken a recent study but he noted that Torricelli didn't offer up any proof either.
(NOTE: there is some sort of exhibit referenced in but not included with the documents we received that was pointed to as depicting this demand).

Just to make sure that the city administration on the governing body see how important it is for them to approve this abatement, Torricelli offers up this subtle threat:

Essentially, he says that without the abatement, there can be no conversions and without those, he will "shut down the building."

Does he not realize that the city has ordinances on the books about vacant and abandoned buildings and that should he "shut down" this one, he'd still have to maintain it and keep it secured unless/until it might be sold?

Is blackmailing the city council and the mayor the way to get what one wants?

Folks, we are talking about a private, for-profit investor who obtained the property for $1, had the city do some demo and remediation work for him, gave him various PILOTS on parts of the projects and who has the two large first floor spaces rented. His taxes went up and now he wants the city to cut him a break or he'll pack up and go home.

Not likely. He's got too much other property in town to just walk away.

Nothing about this project screams "revitalization". The work of saving the historic building is already done. The "conversion" is not going to add to the city's employment rolls. Page five of the application clearly states that there will be no additional staff hired to manage the building (and, it should be noted, those that currently do are located outside of the city). They claim that the additional retail space when rented will bring jobs to downtown, but we believe the retail space to already be rented. (It appears as though this package was prepared last spring but only just recently submitted to the city and doesn't take into account that there is now a dental office located in the building). And, of course, there is the ever popular "construction jobs" that will be "created"; an estimated equivalency of 12 full-time jobs over the four month construction period. Is this really worth a 10 year tax abatement in a city strapped for cash?

Why can't Mr. Torricelli reach into his very deep pockets and fund the conversion himself? He certainly isn't shy about opening his checkbook.

A quick and by no means exhaustive search of NJ ELEC records show that since 1981, Torricelli has personally (this is his money, not the money in his various campaign accounts) given over $117,000 to various political campaigns (we actually have records of contributions he's made that for some reason don't show up in the ELEC database and thus aren't included in that number). Over half of that amount, $64,500, was given out since December 24, 2013. (Yes, we thought that was an interesting date, too).

Why did we start counting on Christmas Eve of 2013? Because according to the ELEC records that was the date that Torricelli contributed $2,000 to Eric Jackson's 2014 run for mayor. Between that date and June 5, 2014, Torricelli (and his Woodrose Properties, LLC) gave a total of $6,200 to the Jackson campaign. He exceeded the $2,600 limit for the regular campaign (May election) by giving $1,000 from the LLC (an NJ ELEC no-no). Kevin Moriarty explained it here and here.

As has been noted repeatedly, we have no idea who may have contributed how much to Eric Jackson in the last three years because it has been that long since he has filed a campaign report.

North Ward Councilwoman Marge Caldwell Wilson also received a modest $250 contribution from Torricelli in May of 2014.

Campaign contributions are not the only way that Torricelli shows his generosity. After leaving the senate in the wake of a campaign finance scandal, he set up a private foundation with some of his unused campaign funds.

Unlike Eric Jackson who can't seem to file any paperwork on time, you can find the tax returns from Torricelli's Rosemont Foundation online. Here are links to the ones from 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

As we have stated before, foundations and other non-profits set up by public officials offer them ample ways to circumvent campaign finance rules and "spread the wealth." For instance, there was the infamous "Turkey Give Away" on December 22, 2013. We all know it was just a coincidence that he was seeking approval to build a "temporary" (it's still there today, four years later) surface parking lot on the old Pete Lorenzo's restaurant site at about the same time. The fact that his 2013 tax return for the foundation shows over $8,700 spent for the turkeys has no relation to him having gotten the go ahead on his plan.

When you look at the website for the Rosemont Foundation or any of the tax returns, you will see that Torricelli has a soft spot or animal welfare. It shouldn't be a surprise then that in 2014 the foundation donated $1,000 to the Lady Margaret Animal Foundation, set up by Trenton's North Ward Councilwoman, Margaret Caldwell Wilson.

And of course, we cannot forget Mayor Jackson's no longer tax-exempt Moving Trenton Together foundation. The one that conned the good people at the War Memorial into only charging them the (half - price) government rate for renting the theater. Yeah that one.

Well, even though Mayor Jackson couldn't be bothered to file the required 990s, the Rosemont Foundation filed theirs. You guessed it...in 2015 Moving Trenton Together received $2,500 from Torricelli's foundation.

Now, we are not saying that any of this is illegal. And we are not saying that any of Torricelli's largesse is meant to influence any decisions on the part of the Jackson administration, the council or any other government body that can give a thumbs up or down to things like planning and zoning approvals or tax abatements.

What we are saying is that Mr. Torricelli certainly has the ways and means to do the work at the Golden Swan himself. If it is such a good investment that will make the property profitable, then he should dig into his own pocket and keep his hand out of the taxpayer's!

{NOTE: while we were writing this, the Trentonian's David Foster posted a piece on the application for a long term tax abatement. He covers much of the same ground as we have here, but he's got a couple of interesting quotes from Mr. Torricelli.}

How much can the city afford to keep giving?

2017-12-04T06:00:00.000-05:00

Former Senator Seeks Tax Abatement For Downtown Property

The above item appears on the docket for the December 7, 2017 Trenton City Council meeting. We find it appalling that Golden Swan Urban Renewal, LLC, whose principal is former Senator Robert Torricelli, would ask the city to reduce the property taxes for his "investment" property on S. Warren Street.

Back in August of this year, Kevin Moriarty, revisted the topic of what he called the Revaluation of La-La Land. It was a topic he'd written about it in January, twice in fact. And now Torricelli wants a long-term tax abatement.

Well, we say "Too bad!" Senator Torricelli has taken more than enough from Trenton. It's time he starts paying his fair share.

The Golden Swan property was acquired by Torricelli (through his Woodrose Properties Golden Swan LLC) in 2005. He bought it from the city of Trenton for the grand sum of one dollar. In December of 2007, the city granted Torricelli UEZ funds to do some of the renovation work on the buildings. (This was all covered in some of our earliest postings on this blog. You can find one story here and another here.)

EDIT: courtesy of Kevin Moriarty, we now have a copy of Ordinance 17-80 wherein the developer is requesting a 10 year tax abatement so he can essentially replace some of the buildings systems and convert rental office space to rental residential space. He is doing this under threat of abandoning the project altogether if he doesn't get the abatement because the properties are not profitable.

It was pointed out at the time that there were some serious monetary contributions that flowed from Torricelli to then Mayor Doug Palmer's campaign and foundation. Not that that in anyway influenced the city's decision to sell the property for $1 and then throw in UEZ money later on.

After a decade, with a Subway store located on the ground floor and some office and residential space above, Torricelli is coming to the city, again; hand out; looking for a "long-term tax abatement." All the while, the everyday folks are scrambling to meet their newly increased property tax bills. Doesn't quite seem fair, does it?

Now, we can't point to any possible contributions from Torricelli to current Mayor Eric Jackson's campaign or private foundation that may have influenced the decision to bring the tax abatement to council for approval. But only because Jackson has not filed the required tax returns and election reports where such contributions, if there were any, might show up.

What we do know is this, any member of Trenton's governing body who votes to approve this long-term tax abatement is showing that they care more for a non-resident investor who has continually made money off of the city's largesse than they do for the people who actually voted them into office. The best move the council could take would be to vote this ordinance down immediately.

Fixed price

2017-11-14T08:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday we took you through the saga of the never formed Trenton Employment Commission and the money spent ($23,000+) on Hill Consultants to coordinate Mayor Jackson's invisible Local Employment Initiative. There is so much wrong with that situation that we neglected to include one other little tiny problem that needs to be addressed.

On July 8, 2015 then director of Housing and Economic Development for the City of Trenton Monique King-Viehland prepared and sent a memo to city Business Administrator Terry McEwen. In that memo she recaps the legislative history behind the implementation of the Trenton Resident Employment Policy. She mentions the request for proposal from parties interested in serving as a coordinator for the development and implementation of the program and that Hill Consultants was the only respondent to the RFP. King-Viehland then goes on to recommend awarding the one year, $50,000 contract to Hill Consultants.

There is another document that may have been attached to that memo (the docs as received from the clerk's office were somewhat disorganized). It's a tally sheet of sorts summarizing the results of the RFP process.

The document shows there was only one response to the RFP, that of Hill Consultants. Further down the page, there is a line for "Hourly rate" and that rate is clearly entered in as $100.00.

Interestingly, on the six invoices Charles Hill submitted to the city, the rate is posted as $125.00 per hour.

Nowhere in any of the documents provided in response to our OPRA request is there anything indicating a change in the hourly rate, up or down. Or a correction to the rate published on the tally sheet.

So what happened? How did the rate jump from $100 per hour to $125 per hour?

Was it a clerical error made while the purchasing department was preparing the RFP evaluation sheet? Was the rate always $125 an hour or did the consultant just arbitrarily and unilaterally increase his rate?

In an administration where financial missteps seem to occur with regularity, why would we be surprised if this friend and supporter of the mayor felt comfortable in increasing his billing rate and nobody questioned it.

Maybe if the city council decides to take this up with Mayor Jackson, they can find out why the hourly rate changed between the July and November of 2015.

Whatever happened to the City of Trenton's Resident Employment Initiative?

2017-11-13T08:30:00.000-05:00

Trenton Mayor Eric Jackson not only rates a failing grade with regards to the management and reporting of his campaign finances (3 years of past due filings) and his Moving Trenton Together private foundation, he’s earns a big fat zero for his Trenton Resident Employment Initiative.

In September of 2014 Trenton City Council passed ordinance 14-42 and created the Trenton Employment Commission. This was done to support the administration’s new policy of seeking at least 25% local employment by contractors on government funded/sponsored projects. The Trenton Employment Commission was to be comprised of the Mayor or his/her designee, a representative from the City Council, a representative from a labor union and four residents of Trenton (the labor rep and the four residents to be appointed by the Mayor).

The stated purpose of the commission is to "meet monthly to oversee the implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the Trenton Resident Employment Policy."

The ordinance was introduced by the Council President (we assume on behalf of the Administration) in August of 2014 just over a month after Jackson took office. The introduction and the adoption by council a month later were both unanimous.

It wasn’t until 13 months after the adoption of the ordinance that the city council approved resolution 15-463, a one year, $50,000 contract with Hill Consultants LLC to coordinate and implement the Trenton Resident Employment Initiative. Hill Consultants was the only respondent to the city’s RFP.

Not surprising for Trenton’s local government, there was some controversy at the time. The contract was pulled from consideration in July of 2015 because ofquestions from the city overseers at the Department of Community Affairs.

When the resolution awarding the contract finally came before council in October of 2015, mention was made of the fact that Charles Hill, the consulting firm’s principal, had contributed $500 to Eric Jackson’s campaign in 2013. While this did not violate the city’s Pay-to-Play law, it was enough to make South Ward councilman George Muschal vote against the contract. {And it should be remembered that we cannot tell if Mr. Hill made any subsequent contributions to Eric Jackson’s campaign because of the latter’s failure to file reports for the past three years}. North Ward councilwoman Marge Caldwell-Wilson abstained from voting.

It has been two years since Hill Consultants was retained. What has happened since?

Very little, it seems.

Records obtained via OPRA request from the city show that $23,000 of the approved $50,000 was paid to Hill Consultants between December 2015 and June 2016. After May of 2016, Hill Consultants stopped billing the city. There is no documentation as to why and very little in the way of work product to show for the time and money spent.

And when asked, the city replied that the Employment Commission never met nor was anyone even appointed to serve on it.

As noted above, Hill Consultants was the only respondent to the city’s RFP for the Trenton Employment Policy coordinator. The firm’s principal, Charles Hill, is credited with “over 10 years of experience in both the government, not for profit and private sector” in the documents included in the proposal to the city.

Reading through the proposal and researching the firm reveals a couple of ironies. First, Hill Consultants lists an office address in Trenton. According to forms included in the proposal, Charles Hill lists an out of state home address. In a form required under the very initiative he was being hired to coordinate, each contractor or subcontractor must report to the city the number of Trenton residents hired. In this case, none. Not that it was required but the consultant hired to coordinate this local employment initiative was himself not a city resident at the time he was awarded the contract!

The proposal also states that Hill Consultants is a subsidiary of Falcon Ventures, a private equity firm. The website for Falcon lists the same West State Street address as Hill Consultants. New Jersey business records show that in July of 2016 Hill Consultants lost its business status for failure to fileannual reports for two consecutive years. (Sound familiar to anyone?) FalconVentures and Falcon Investments (all part of the series of companies created by Charles Hill) lost their business registration status in June of this year.

That’s right, the non-resident business consultant failed to file and not just for the consultant company but for the other LLC’s he was a part of. More irony.

An aside: During our records search we also discovered Trenton Partners for (Economic) Development was formed between Charles Hill, Anthony Stewart and Carmen Melendez (she of Tony Mack fame) in February of 2009. That company has also had its business status revoked for failure to file annual reports. And its IRS tax exempt status. The pattern continues.

Next we looked at the invoices submitted to the city by Charles Hill for his services. There are six of them, one for each month, November 2015 through April 2016.

Most of the items listed are for meetings or conference calls with Diana Rogers, the director of Housing and Economic Development for the city. There is one, one hour meeting with Mayor Jackson. There are several blocks of time charged for “Meeting with Hill Consulting Team”, which is a little odd because as far as we can tell, Hill Consultants is a one person shop. (Hill billed time for meeting with himself?)

There is rarely any comment about subject or topics discussed at these meeting or in these phone calls and when there is it simply states something like “discuss Resident Employment Tasks”. Well, isn’t that rather evident since that was what Hill was hired for? What about the meat of those meetings; what tasks, specifically, were discussed?

In the invoice marked April 2016, submitted for work performed in March of that year, there is finally some time marked for creating work product. Specifically, 10 hours were billed for the development of a Section 3 conflict of interest policy and 30 hours for an overview and presentation for the commission.

We took a look at the conflict of interest document and it seemed pretty straight forward, boiler plate type language that had been formatted to fit into what we presume to be the Trenton city code book style. A quick Google search turned up various links to similar conflict of interest forms. It sure didn’t take us any 10 hours to do that. A good cut, paste and format session would probably take no more than two hours, three tops.

The work claimed for the overview and presentation to the commission is really intriguing. First of all, we had already established that the commission was never formed and thus never met. Fifteen hours to create the never used powerpoint presentation seems a little high to us.

There are was another combined 10 hours charged for working on FAQ and flow chart attachments to the HUD Section 3 guidelines. Again, seems a little high but what do we know. Maybe Hill is a slow, methodical worker.

What did raise some concerns was the five hours of “Meetings with Community Groups”. There are no specifics given for these meetings. No dates, times, or attendance lists were provided. How does anyone even know if these meetings actually occurred or not? Wouldn’t a prudent steward of public money require and retain back up for auditing purposes?

The invoice labeled May 2016 for hours worked in April also includes mention of meetings with local contractors and community organizations plus development of an outreach document. We received no example of the document from the city. Again there was no proof that any meetings were held, when they were held, or who attended.

We reached out to noted local contractor Tracey Syphax to see if he had been contacted or made aware of any meetings. His response was that he had no interaction with the consultant nor was he aware of any local contractor who benefited from this program.

We also inquired of John Harmon who leads the Trenton-based African American Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey if he had any contact with Hill or the city with regards to this local employment initiative. His response mirrored Tracey Syphax’s; No contact.

In amongst the papers we did receive from the city was an agenda for an April14, 2016 meeting of the Section 3 Local Hiring Commission. Again, when we followed up with the city we were told the commission was never formed and no meetings were ever held.

Another irregularity we caught was with the purchase orders submitted by Housing and Economic Director Diana Rogers requesting payment to Hill. The first PO was numbered 16-04659 and was for the December 2015 invoice (hours worked in November). The items in the PO pretty much match the invoice. Then Ms. Rogers appears to get lazy or sloppy or both.

The January PO, and all subsequent ones, use the same number of 16-05251. In fact she uses the exact same PO, with Hill’s verification signature dated in January, 2016, just adding handwritten notes telling what month it was for, what the amount being billed that month is, and then the check number that was issued to pay it. We’re not certified municipal comptrollers or finance directors but this doesn’t appear to be the best, cleanest record keeping.

Do they city’s auditors ever catch any of this stuff?

Where is the city council in all of this. Seven of them passed the ordinance creating the commission that was never formed; the commission one of their own was supposed to sit on. Are they not the least bit curious as to what happened to the commission?

Five of them voted to hire the consultant for $50,000 for a year. He billed the city for almost half of that with little to show. Six months later, he was gone. Aren’t they the least bit concerned about what happened?

And what about the Department of Community Affairs? They had concerns at the outset, did they not think it prudent to check back with the city to see how things were progressing? Or maybe their leaving it for the incoming administration of Governor-elect Phil Murphy to sort out. It's announced that incoming Lt. Governor Sheila Oliver will head up the DCA, maybe she can straighten this mess out.

Regardless, it’s yet another failure for the city; another plan of Jackson’s that was never fully executed.

Intermezzo

2017-11-09T13:25:00.001-05:00

What do you think about this?

In April, 2016, the Trenton Housing Authority hired Mayor Eric Jackson's sister, Pamela Brooks, to fill an $85,000 position as the Director of Resident and Community Services.

You can find the job description from the THA here.

On the last page, the education requirements are listed:

EDUCATION
Required: Bachelor's degree in Social Sciences, Urban Studies, Public Administration or related field.

Preferred: MSW

As pointed out in David Foster's Trentonian article linked above and confirmed by Brooks' resume, she has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Rutgers.

That certainly isn't the MSW (Masters of Social Work) that was preferred in the job description.

Misleading Trenton Together

2017-11-08T10:18:00.000-05:00

Misrepresentation and misstatement seem to be a family affair for Trenton Mayor Eric Jackson and his sister, Pamela Brooks. Their handling of Jackson’s Moving Trenton Together private foundation provides ongoing evidence that they have no idea about how to properly manage their affairs and have no problem trying to cover up by giving misinformation.

The foundation lost its tax-exempt status with the IRS for failing to file the required tax returns for three consecutive years. It has lost its New Jersey state business entity status for not filing the required annual reports for two consecutive years. MTT never registered with the state charitable organization directory. On top of all that, it appears as though MTT used Jackson’s title as mayor to get the “government” rate for renting the War Memorial for holiday concerts when they should have paid a higher, non-profit rate. And then there is the possibility that individuals on the city of Trenton payroll may have been taking care of some MTT business while on the city’s clock.

Politicians often set up some sort of non-profit as a means to circumvent election campaign finance rules on who can give money, how much can be given (plus offering a tax deduction to donors) and what the money can be spent on. MTT was Formed in December of 2014 by Jackson, his wife, Denice, and his sister, Pam Brooks. In an article published that month, Times reporter Jenna Pizzi wrote, “The mayor said he wanted to form the group, rather than partner with the many nonprofits already registered in Trenton, because there are efforts he would like to move on that will compliment the activities of existing groups.”

While there is nothing overtly illegal or improper about setting up a non-profit like MTT, care should be taken to keep it separate from any official city business. No work should be performed for the corporation by city employees while on city time; no city resources expended in the execution of MTT work, etc. (Just look at the recent scandal involving the Friends of Mercer County Parks non-profit and the Bannon brothers as an example of what can happen).

Corporations in New Jersey must file an annual report. At its most basic, it is a five-minute on-line exercise followed by a payment to the state. It keeps the business status active for a year. The state sends out notices of renewal to the registered agent of record three months prior to the due date. The website provides all current information and not only allows you to file the current report, but you can resolve any deficiencies in prior filing years. Failure to file for two consecutive years results in the state revoking the business’s status.

Moving Trenton Together never filed any annual reports and had its business registration revoked in July of 2016.

The registered agent for MTT is David Minchello. His name also appears on the application for IRS tax exempt status. At the time of formation, Minchello was employed by the city of Trenton as it Law Director. Did he prepare and submit the paperwork on city time or his own? We really can’t say.

We do know this; Minchello used the address of his firm, Antonelli Minchello PC, in Union when registering MTT in December of 2014. In the spring of 2015, the partners closed their firm and joined the DeCotiis Fitzpatrick & Cole firm. Questions arose surrounding the fact that Minchello was the city law director and his new firm had a contract to work for the city as well. He left the city’s employ in the summer of 2015.

When Minchello resigned as law director for the city, nobody thought to change the registered agent. Renewal notices were likely sent to Minchello’s former address and not forwarded. Had Jackson/MTT been an actual client of Minchello, would he not have taken care to see that the records were updated and/or a new agent listed? Or did Minchello feel this “duty” was no longer his responsibility because he was no longer a Jackson appointee/city employee?

Certainly, neither Jackson, his wife, nor his sister could be bothered to pay attention to the legal necessities of paperwork regarding their private foundation. It’s easily done, again, on line. But they couldn’t be bothered. So the business registration has lapsed for failure to file.

Charities in New Jersey are supposed to register with the Division of ConsumerAffairs. There are exemptions for charities which receive less than $10,000 in annual gross receipts. It is possible that MTT falls into the category, but we don’t know because they haven’t filed any tax returns (more on that in a minute). We do know that a search of the NJ Charitable Organization database turns up no filing for Moving Trenton Together. Doug Palmer’s Trenton First Initiative is there. So is the now defunct Tony Mack Cares Foundation. Even presumed Mayoral candidate Paul Perez’s “Partnerships for Trenton” non-profit has filed the required reports{Edited for clarity}. There is nothing from or about Jackson’s MTT.

The Trentonian reported in December of 2016 that MTT had yet to file any tax returns. Indeed, in August, the IRS published the revocation of MTT’s tax-exempt status for failing to file tax returns for three consecutive years. As a private foundation, MTT was required to file the 990-PF form. Yet they failed to do so for any of their first three years in existence…2014, 2015, or 2016.

Even after the published reports of December 2016, MTT failed to file their returns. As of May of this year the IRS deemed them delinquent and revoked the non-profits tax exempt status. Public notice was posted to the IRS website in August of this year.

The Trentonian reported the following from Jackson: “With the filing, you get an initial couple years to file it,” the first-term mayor said. “We had attempted to do it internally. There were some errors with it. It came back rejected and we didn’t get it back timely. Now, I have a certified public accountant (CPA) group that’s working on it as we speak to get it done so I can get my reinstatement. We’re curing that now.”Unfortunately, Jackson’s statement is incorrect. Organizations must file a tax return with the IRS each and every year. In fact, it says so very clearly in the IRS determination letter sent to Jackson’s home address advising him of MTT receiving tax exempt status:

“You’re required to file Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation or Section 4947 (a) (1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation, annually, whether or not you have income or activity during the year. If you don’t file a required return or notice for three consecutive years, your exempt status will be automatically revoked. “

There is nothing ambiguous about that statement. MTT was required to file. Period. There is no pass given for “an initial couple of years.”

As for the statement that the returns were filed but had errors and came back rejected, we wanted to see if that was true. We submitted an FOIA request to the IRS for copies of any returns filed by MTT, erroneous or not. The response came back stating the 990s were "either unavailable, aren't open to public inspection under Section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code, or destroyed (if it has been six years since the end of the processing year)".

We know that it hasn’t been six years since the end of the processing year because MTT was only founded in 2014 and thus ruled out that reason for no documents being available.

We checked Section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code and determined that it wasn’t applicable to any returns filed by MTT.

That left open the possibility that there aren’t any records available because none were ever filed. To check on that, we called the IRS and spoke with a very nice fellow who answered a few questions with the adviso that he could only give general responses but that I could “read between the lines” to understand what he was saying.

First, we inquired if a tax-exempt organization is a Private Foundation but files the incorrect tax form three years running, would they have their status revoked. He answered in the affirmative.

Then we asked if, as in the case above, the wrong 990s had been filed would there still be records available. He answered in the affirmative.

Anticipating my next question regarding MTT specifically, he answered "At this time, there are no records available."

We take this to mean that there are no records of any 990s filed by MTT because none were filed.

This directly contradicts Jackson’s statement that they filed but the form had errors and was returned to him. That simply does not appear to be the case at all. (As of the date of publication, MTT's tax exempt status is still listed as revoked for failure to file on the IRS website).

In the off chance we are drawing an incorrect conclusion, all Mayor Jackson must do is produce copies of the forms that he says were filed in error and returned. And if they have really engaged a CPA who is “working on curing that now”, show proof. It’s that simple.

With no tax returns available that report income and expenditures for the non-profit, we decided to look more closely into the shows MTT put on at the Patriots Theater in December 2014, 2015, and 2016. We submitted an Open Public Records Act request for the contracts and correspondence related to the three events.

We found out that MTT paid the “government” rate of $1500 for renting the theater, a 50% savings over the published rate of $3000 for not-for-profit groups. Interestingly, on the War Memorial’s own website there is no“government” rate but rather a “State Agency” rate available “only to state agency clients conducting government business.” We find it hard to see how MTT meets the definition that would qualify them for the discounted rental rate.

First, MTT by design is supposed to be an entity separate and distinct from the city of Trenton. It is therefore NOT an agency of municipal, county or state government. Secondly, per its incorporation documents, MTT was created for the business purpose of [presenting] “cultural events”. Hardly government business.

We raised the question of the rental rates to individuals at the state and were told,

“As previously communicated, the City of Trenton was represented as the Lessee for these events, so in keeping with past practice, the government rate was charged accordingly.”“The payment arrangements that are made between the Lessee, a sponsor, or a 3^rd party does not impact the rental rate.”“Also, the identification of a concert for the Citizens of Trenton at no charge was deemed a municipal event.”

Indeed, on the three rental applications for the Patriots Theater, the listed organization/Presenter/Renter is listed as “Mayor Eric Jackson.” Was this done to subtly suggest that it was the City of Trenton renting the hall and thus qualify for the lower rental rate?

On the application for 2014, the check box for the renter’s non-profit status was not checked. On the 2015 and 2016 applications, the “Non-profit” box is checked, but not the government one. The War Memorial staff didn’t seem to pick up on the fact that it was not a government agency holding a government business event at the theater.

All the contact information regarding the rentals was directed to Ms. Brooks…we presume at either her or Jackson's home address and personal email (she’s not on the city payroll so there shouldn’t be a city email address for her). From the initial email correspondence in September of 2014 (before the non-profit was officially formed) Ms. Brooks identifies herself as working “on behalf of Trenton Mayor Eric Jackson” and often refers to the Mayor’s concert giving the impression it was a city event.

The security deposit for the December 2014 concert was a “starter” check such as one gets when one first opens a checking account. It was handwritten with the Payer Name and address listed as “Eric E. Jackson, Mayor” and the mayor’s home address and signed by Gilbert K. Bell. Mr. Bell is (or was at the time – we don’t know if there’s been any changes since Jackson hasn’t filed any campaign reports in three years) the treasurer of the Mr. Jackson’s Election Campaign. A second check bore the handwritten Payer name and address of Moving Trenton Together, and was signed by Jackson himself. In either event, this was NOT a city event and we maintain it should not have qualified for the lower rental rate.

And there’s another question here…the security deposit check signed by Mr. Bell in October 22 of 2014 bears the handwritten number “008”. The second check, signed by Jackson, was dated December 18, 2014 and hand numbered 0002. It is possible that Jackson was originally going to pay for this from his campaign treasury and then decided to form the non-profit to cover the expenses. Probably because of the fewer restrictions on the donations to and expenditures from a non-profit compared to an election campaign account.

The 2015 and 2016 concerts saw checks written on fully printed checks with the Payer name and address of Moving Trenton Together at the Melrose Ave address. The 2015 checks were drawn on an account at Wells Fargo (same as the 2014 checks) but signed by Jackson himself. The 2016 checks were drawn on an account at Investors Bank and signed by Ms. Brooks.

Despite lots of evidence to the contrary, the state seemed to accept that Mayor Eric Jackson’s name on the contracts somehow made this a city (government) activity. Ms. Brooks never appears to offer up the information that this was not an official city sponsored event. Was it deliberate? You decide.

In another email thread received via the same OPRA request we find that at the beginning of 2017, MTT still owed the state money for the 2014 and 2015 rentals. Starting on February 10 of this year, the CFO of the Department of State reported to Ms. Brooks that MTT still owed the state a little over $3200 dollars. It took nearly a month to resolve the problem. The balances were paid by credit card. The outstanding $1000 balance from the 2014 show stemmed from Brooks claiming she thought the security deposit check had been cashed to cover the balance and only found out it had been returned after going through the mayor’s records.

Ms. Brooks should have paid closer attention. On the second page of the standard lease agreement with the War Memorial, it is explained in paragraph 3 (Payment of Fees) that:

A security damage/cleaning deposit of $1000.00 shall also be paid no less than 14 days prior to the event. (Please make this a separate check). The building security deposit of $1000 will be held by the Lessor until after the Event and consequent inspection of the facility. After a satisfactory inspection of the facility, and the after the Lessee has satisfied any and all financial and other obligations under the contract, the building security deposit will be returned to the Lessee.

Yet again, neither Jackson or Brooks seem capable of reading, comprehending and/or following simple directions. The check was returned and not applied to the balance due, just as is spelled out in the rental documents.

Jackson and Brooks and company repeatedly fail to do the right thing in a timely manner. The explanations offered when questioned about their ineptitude are always weak and don’t appear to stand up to scrutiny. Jackson’s method of operating is sloppy at best and may border on the unethical.

Trentonians, think about this if he decides to seek a second term.

Where is Chris Smith?

2017-02-23T08:19:00.001-05:00

For an individual who was just elected to his 19^th term as a member of the House of Representatives, Christopher H. Smith seems awfully timid about facing his constituents.

Wednesday night (Feb 22) a non-partisan coalition of groups sought to hear directly from Smith, mostly about his position on the ACA but other matters as well. You would think that Mr. Smith would be savvy enough and comfortable enough to face residents of his district and answer tough questions. He refused and his office has suggested that this isn’t a real town hall since the congressman didn’t convene it.

"Social media has perpetuated this deceit -- a tactic designed to incite disappointment towards the congressman -- but which in reality exploits the concerns of well-meaning and unsuspecting citizens, Jeff Sagnip, Smith's aide, said in a statement to the Asbury Park Press.

Sorry, Mr. Sagnip. The disappointment comes from the fact that the Congressman stopped holding town hall meetings two decades ago. How can Smith say he truly represents the people of his district if he can't meet with them face to face and hear their feelings?

Smith himself said in a recent interview that his decision not to hold town halls was forced by bad behavior in the past.

His refusal to meet is as rude and inexcusable as those who may have engaged in "bad behavior" at past town halls. He sought the position as the people's representative; he should have the fortitude to come before his constituents.

Congressman Smith obviously suffers from the inertia of incumbency and is more interested in preserving his position than representing the 4th District .

See something, say something?

2016-09-21T09:04:00.000-04:00

EDITED: 4:41 pm 9/21/16

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016, Trenton Mayor Eric Jackson convened a press event to denounce the recent wave of violent crime that has washed over New Jersey’s capital city. During the course of the presentation attended by various levels of state, county and local officials, a broad based approach to combating the violence.

As Greg Wright wrote in the Times:

“Clergy members, law enforcement officials, local and state politicians and others - including state Attorney General Christopher Porrino - then took turns outlining what their organization or agency would do to about the recent shootings and how to prevent future ones.”

“Nearly every speaker called on the community members to join the leaders in the push, calling for a cultural shift within the communities where citizens see crimes occur but don't report them.”

On the same day, news reports revealed that an investigation had been launched into allegations that a Trenton Police K9 Officer had sex with a prostitute, in a TPD facility while on duty.

Unconfirmed reports indicate that other K9 Officers may have had knowledge of the incident. If that is true, it sort of negates the request from the Mayor, Police Director Ernest Parrey and other officials for the community to report crimes they are witness to.

The relationship between any law enforcement agency, especially a local police department, and the community it is sworn to protect and serve is based upon mutual respect for each other and the laws that govern us all.

The recent high profile incidents of police involved fatal shootings has weakened the community police partnership. Trust in local departments is flagging…whether deserved or not.

While Trenton has thus far escaped any of the incidents like those in Charlotte or Tulsa or Baton Rouge, etc., the trust between the people and the police is not as strong as it should be.

While an incident of an officer having sex with a prostitute while on duty isn’t the most heinous of crimes, it is an indication to some that the police think they are above the rules.

And even though it is one officer, it reflects poorly on the entire department. To John or Jane Q. Public, it’s not a matter of “one bad apple”, but rather the whole bushel basket is assumed to be spoiled and riddled with worms.

Compounding this is the allegation that other officers were aware of the situation and did not report it. If that proves to be true, it just adds to the public perception that the police have double standards for behavior…one for themselves, one for the rest of us.

Now let’s be clear…our experience has shown that the majority of Trenton’s police officers are hardworking individuals who are proud to wear the badge and truly work to serve all they encounter. In any organization there will be those whose performance falls below the acceptable standard.

When an officer does something that is wrong it is incumbent upon those around the individuals to not turn their heads and look the other way. Rather, they need to report it. It is also up to managers to deal with the problem appropriately, definitively and swiftly.

Too often we have heard past and present TPD officers calling out members of the public or public officials for bad behavior. Why should they remain silent when it comes to one of their own?

There was a somewhat muffled outcry from some members of the department when a police academy cadet was dismissed for cheating and then allowed to re-enter a subsequent academy class. Why would they choose to look the other way when a veteran officer breaks the law?

Allowing the “bad apples” to do as they wish undermines the community-police partnership. It tears at the already shredded fabric of faith the people are asked to place in the police. Weakening that relationship puts both parties at higher risk for more serious confrontations down the road.

If, at the completion of the investigation, the allegations prove to be true, the officer must suffer the appropriate consequences. And, should it be proven that others knew of the situation and did nothing about reporting it, they must be punished as well.

If you see something, say something applies to both sides of the thin blue line.

We have just learned that the officer being investigated for the alleged dalliance with the prostitute has taken his own life. His actions with the woman were absolutely wrong but this is very sad. Perhaps if, instead of turning a blind eye, his colleagues had spoken up this sad turn of events could have been avoided.

Friends with benefits

2016-05-01T17:43:00.000-04:00

This past week it came to light that the New Jersey Attorney General's Office was investigating the non-profit Friends of Mercer County Parks. The investigation centers on allegations of "official misconduct, corruption of public resources and theft by extortion".

Let's be clear from the very start...at this point NO ONE HAS BEEN PROVEN GUILTY OF ANYTHING. The story will be told over time as the investigation is concluded and charges brought or dismissed.

That said, there are issues here. Serious issues.

Let's start by looking at what a "Friends of "organization is and why it can be beneficial.

Non-profits that are NOT a part of local or state government have a little more leeway in raising funds and dispersing them to aid in a public institution's mission. Think about Friends of your local public library. They are able to take on fundraising tasks and then put the money back into the operation of the library so things can be done that would otherwise be restricted by budgetary concerns.

Works the same with parks.

It costs a lot to develop, improve and maintain public recreation areas. Use fees can help defray some of the costs but they have to be kept reasonable. Government budgets have to always be mindful of the tax burden on the residents.

A "Friends of" group can legitimately raise additional funds to augment those that come from the county budget. This can be for specific items; maybe the creation of a dog park within a park or a nature trail that identifies the various flora to be found there. Maybe the "Friends" group wants to hold a specific event or series of events; concerts, outdoor film screenings and the like, but there is no money in the budget for those kinds of things. Great!

If a group of committed volunteers want to properly organize, raise money and lend a hand in promoting the use of pubic facilities, we're all for it.

Problems arise, however, when the non-profits are too closely aligned with/tied to the government entity they are supposed to support.

In the matter before us, we have a "non-profit" group that is made up essentially of employees of the very entity being supported. Despite the claims of public officials about transparency and such, the optics are not good.

The parks commission, while semi-autonomous, is still recognized as a duly chartered public entity and as such is subject to the rules of governing local government entity. From purchasing, to public records and the conduct of public meetings, the commission must follow the same rules as a governing body like the town council or county freeholders.

The "Friends of" group, however, (if properly created and operated) is a private entity that is not subject to the same rules regarding public records or sunshine laws.

When you have a group that is so closely tied the government entity it purports to support, as in the case of the Friends of Mercer County Parks, it just plain looks bad.

Most non-profits are overseen by a board of trustees that volunteer their time. This group was made up of parks employees. This begs the question of whether or not they did "Friends of" work on County time (paid for by the taxpayers). If so, were they not "stealing" from the county coffers?

Wouldn't a better approach have been to solicit trustees and members from a cross-section of the county population. Let them decide how and when to raise funds and when and how to disburse the funds raised? They can work in partnership with but completely independent of the Parks Commission and its staff. There should be no cross over.

No public employee of any agency should hold a voting seat on the board of any non-profit "Friends" group. And they certainly should not have any control over monies raised or disbursed by that group.

Even if, and it is a significant "if", there turns out to be no wrongdoing, the potential for abuse of the non-profit "Friends of" group by the Park Commission members and Executive Director has to be recognized. The only way to eliminate that abuse is to distance the organization from the parks commission, parks staff, etc.

And if it means the county cannot continue to produce concerts and events at the parks, that's fine. That isn't the county's job anyway. Government should provide and maintain the facilities, not program them.

If there is truly a need for a "Friends of " the county parks organization, then let it come from the populace and NOT be a captive to the administration.

A "snowmad's" observation

2016-01-27T13:29:00.000-05:00

A note to our readers: We've relocated our base of operations east of the capital city into Hamilton Township, hence the title change suggested by one waggish friend several weeks back. (We'll work on an improved header in the weeks to come. Hopefully one that will work for the mobile version of the blog as well).

While some might think this move has placed Trenton squarely in our rear view mirror, we prefer to see it as offering a wider, possibly higher definition perspective. Since we are still property tax paying residents of a neighboring township, we feel we can still add to the discussion by, for and about Trenton and its role in Mercer County. As Father used to say, "As goes Trenton, so goes the townships around it."

****

Last weekend's major snowfall has provided the opportunity to observe and compare how various adjacent municipalities handled the issue of clearing the streets of abnormally high amounts of snow. It also allows for a comparison of the public's response to same.

Social media has been on fire with commentary about the various towns' efforts to deal with the snow. The local papers have picked up on it as well. The Times ran this story comparing Ewing and Trenton's approach to clearing one stretch of road that runs through both. They also ran a story about Trenton residents frustrated with the city's snow removal efforts.

Trenton is a centuries old town that was laid out and developed before the advent and dominance of the automobile. Her horse and buggy era neighborhoods have difficulty accommodating enough parking for the multitudes of personal vehicles under the best of conditions. Dump a couple of feet of snow on the streets and it quickly makes a mess of things.

The City has to clear the snow, obviously starting with the main thoroughfares and working down through the secondary and tertiary roads and onto the alleys and such. A big problem, as any urban homeowner will tell you, is where to put the snow removed from the streets and sidewalks.

Self-centered idiots who clear the walks in front of their homes and/or dig out their parked cars, trucks and SUVs by throwing the snow INTO THE STREET should be cited and punished. They are not helping themselves let alone anyone else by adding to the snow clogged streets. They are just making it harder for the city to plow everyone out.

On the other side of the coin, the city must have a better, more effective plan in place for snow removal. You would think that a Mayor who had previously served as the Public Works Director would be better able to direct and manage the city's clean up efforts. How could it be that no one thought about clearing the City Hall parking lot until it was time for the workers to show up on Monday?

Open communication with the residents about the progress in clearing the streets might help to cut down on some of the complaints. Perhaps the snow removal plan should have some benchmarks that can be used for all to measure the municipality's effectiveness in getting the streets cleared of snow.
(All snow emergency routes completely cleared within 8 hours of the cessation of snowfall; all secondary roads cleared 12 hours later; etc.)

Hamilton runs an application called "Snow Plow Sal" that is supposed to show where plows are operating at any given time as well as tell users when they can expect their street to be plowed. We saw several complaints posted about untouched streets where the app indicated plowing had been done. We didn't investigate the claims (we stayed off of the roads as much as possible during and immediately after the storm so the plows could do their thing.) It seems as though there were some "errors" in the data provided. Or maybe it was the interpretation of the data. If a plow had made a pass on the street but the snow wasn't removed all the way down to the pavement, was the street considered "done"?

Again, it was a lot of snow. Even with Hamilton's generally larger, less congested streets, it is hard to make that volume of frozen precipitation disappear overnight. Were the public's expectations met? It doesn't seems so. Were those expectations realistic? That's a good question.

And what about the citizens? How well did they cope with this?

Our past experience in Trenton was that only about half of the residents and property owners (including the City itself) adequately cleared their sidewalks as per city ordinance. This made walking tricky at best. As mentioned above, those that did often threw the snow into the streets adding to the burden the plows had to clear away.

In Hamilton there are still some properties where the sidewalks haven't been cleared but not as many proportionately as we used to see in the city. Interesting to us were the homes where the driveways and walks to the front door were snow and ice free within hours of the end of the storm while the sidewalks along the frontage were left untouched. So, it wasn't a matter of someone too old or ill to get the shoveling done.

City or township, the unusual circumstances of the storm did bring out the good in a lot of people. Stories of neighbors helping neighbors dig out cars, get walks cleared, etc. were also posted online and published in the papers. The Trentonian's Jeff Edelstein even did a column on his personal experience with "a helper".

We, too, were the beneficiaries of good neighbors who brought their snow blower over to clear the driveway and knock down the "plow wall" that had been kicked across the driveway curb cut.

Tag! You're IT!

2015-11-05T14:00:00.001-05:00

Tonight, Trenton's governing body will, yet again, vote on a contract for IT Consulting services. It has become every bit as hot button an issue this year as it was five years ago under the Mack administration.

There have been a few articles in the local press, some good blogging by Kevin Moriarty, plus some extended commentary on social media. Here are three points that we think must be kept in mind when discussing this situation and deciding the best direction from here.

1) The shortcomings of the City of Trenton's IT system should not be blamed solely (if at all) on the current consultant, Associated Data Processing. ADPC is a vendor hired to support the city's various departments and their IT needs.

Over the years, many have commented on how the city has lagged in effectively using technology to increase the efficacy of its many operations. We've begged for more modern, up to date, services.

Is it the fault of the vendor supporting the existing systems that the city has not drafted a plan to improve the technology used or committed the resources necessary to execute a plan (if there was one)? NO!

If you know your car needs new tires, a transmission rebuild and a tune up but don't direct your mechanic to do the work and authorize the cost of same, is it the mechanic's fault that you can't get up to speed on Rte 1? NO!

If you talk about wanting to lose weight, quit smoking and get in shape with your personal physician but don't follow her suggestions on how to achieve those goals, is it her fault? NO!

Why are so many so quick to blame ADPC for the shortcomings of the Trenton's IT infrastructure?

Just read the documents included with the RFP and you'll see that in the past five years there has been few substantive discussions with either the past or current administrations about upgrading the city's IT system. Contained within in that RFP is an assessment report done, at the City's request, by the (then) current contractor, ADPC. Or we should say, a part of the report is included.

The RFP only contained 36 pages, about half, of the full assessment report. The parts that were omitted were the recommendations, evaluations of ADPCs performance, and lists of aborted or stalled projects, etc. The full report can be found here.

One example...stretching back to the Palmer administration, the city has been "ready" to implement a new computer based system for issuing parking permits and passes. This started when the current Mayor was the Director of Public Works (under whose supervision falls the Division of Transportation) and has been talked about through the Mack years and into the present.The city has yet to commit the resources (funding) to get this system up and running. That is hardly the fault of ADPC.

Another example, the city has failed to update and maintain its GIS system, rendering it somewhat less than useful.

In the full IT Assessment report, various departments rated ADPC's performance. We'll let the document speak for itself here.

2) The RFP process has, by all accounts, been seriously flawed. Flawed to the point where it certainly appears, at least superficially, that it was done in an attempt to manipulate the outcome. Let's start with the simple fact that the city's purchasing agent is not certified (nor does she have to be, by state statute, but she hasn't been able to pass the test). So how credible is the bidding process for anything when it is overseen by someone who cannot meet the requirements for certification set by the state?

With regards to the IT contract, the members of the scoring committee are somewhat suspect. Are they qualified to evaluate IT matters? Are they free of conflicts of interest and totally objective? Was the hired "professional" really able to evaluate a dozen responses from bidders in only the two hours he was paid for?

The mere fact that the administration only published part of the IT Assessment report, leaving out the solid recommendations and lack of commitment to upgrades and improvements is a pretty good indication to us that they were trying to push their shortcomings (and those of their predecessors) off on someone else.

3) It is very doubtful that FCC Consulting is truly the best firm out of all the companies that responded to the RFP. A simple review of the websites of all the companies shows a notable lack of professionalism in FCC's site when compared to the competitors. All of the other firms show at least a small staff and multi-person leadership. FCC's is obviously a one person show at the moment, run out of the principal's rented home. Not very confidence instilling.

What happens if FCC gets the contract? How quickly can he staff up to meet the demands of the work? Can he recruit people with the right skills and experience to serve what will surely be FCC's biggest client?

Does FCC have the financial wherewithal to manage this contract? Doubtful.

Mr. Carothers' business history is rather checkered. There are two judgments from 2008 and 2009 totaling almost $70,000 that are listed on the state judiciary website as still being open. Why hasn't he been able to pay these off?

The business registration for the various LLC's Mr. Carothers has created have all been suspended at one time or another for failure to file annual reports. Filing is a simple process, done online. And if your company goes out of business, you are supposed to file that as well.

Then there is Mr. Carother's personal history of bankruptcy and such. Again, not a lot to build confidence in his ability to successfully perform the important work that the city so badly needs.

So, what to do?

It is possible that there is a better company out there that can help Trenton move ahead in the IT game. There is really no way of knowing until the administration maps out a plan, on its own or with the help of a consultant, as to what it wants to achieve, when it wants to achieve it by and earmarking the funds and human resources to get it done.

For the long term, a plan must be drawn up and a timetable for implementation adopted.

In the short term, the city needs a capable IT consultant. Why not keep ADPC at least through the process of developing a strategy for moving ahead? And if not ADPC, then at least obtain the services of a truly experienced, financially stable vendor to handle the current needs.

This is how our failing city operates

2015-02-07T15:42:00.001-05:00

The headline read “Trenton union leader files suit against the city to have $40k returned after contract dispute”.

The story was about Dave Tallone, the head of the city’s largest union and his quest to have $40,000 returned to him by the city of Trenton.

Tallone had been charged with 15 counts of forgery and fraud in 2011 but the charges were dropped in 2013. At that time, Tallone paid the city of Trenton $40,000 in case the city decided to pursue a civil case against him in the matter. They haven’t and he asked for his money back but hasn’t received it. So, Tallone filed a lawsuit.

Now, at first, this might seem only fitting and right. He put the money up in trust, it wasn’t needed and now he wants it back.

Unfortunately, it just isn’t that simple. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Background
If you are not familiar with or have forgotten the background in this matter, here’s a refresher:

From at least 2006 through 2011, Dave Tallone was paid by the City of Trenton to provide food for the Annual Spring Litter march. State law prohibits municipal employees and officers from doing business with their employer so Tallone used other names in an effort to cover his tracks.

Most often, he seemed to use the name of Adele Wright. Ms. Wright is Mr. Tallone’s sister. He also used the name of a Joseph Gresko who is believed to be a relative and/or friend of Tallone’s. The addresses used on the documents pertaining to the contracts were sometimes Tallone’s home address or that of his son (who has since passed away).

It had to have been common knowledge throughout City Hall he was doing this. It was Tallone who showed up to serve the food each day (presumably while still collecting his daily pay from the City of Trenton).

The payments for the food were deposited into bank accounts in the city employee credit union, of which Mr. Tallone was the president. One check was actually endorsed by the payee and then endorsed again with a signature reading “Dave Tallone.”

In the fall of 2011, Mr. Tallone was charged by the Mercer County Prosecutor’s office with 15 counts of forgery and fraud. The charges were dropped in 2013 because the MCPO could not get Tallone’s sister to travel from her home in Nevada to Trenton to testify.

Tallone got his job back and was given his back pay. The day after the charges were dropped, he gave the city a check for $40,000. Ostensibly this was to be held “in trust” pending the result of any civil action the city might initiate in place of the failed criminal case.

Now Tallone wants his money back. The city hasn’t yet given it to him, so he’s going to court to get it.

Too many questions, too few answers
We have never quite grasped the whole way the case was handled from the outset. Nor have we understood how it went on for several years before being brought to the attention of the authorities.

From the New Jersey State Statutes:

40:69A-163. Interest in contracts or jobs forbidden

No officer or employee elected or appointed in any municipality shall be interested directly or indirectly in any contract or job for work or materials, or the profits thereof, to be furnished or performed for the municipality, and no such officer or employee shall be interested directly or indirectly in any contract or job for work or materials or the profits thereof, to be furnished or performed, for any person operating any interurban railway, street railway, gas works, water works, electric light or power plant, heating plant, telegraph line, telephone exchange, or other public utility within the territorial limits of such municipality.

L.1950, c.210, p. 509, s. 17-14, eff. June 8, 1950.

There seems to be no disagreement that it was Mr. Tallone who got the contracts. The Mercer County Prosecutor states, in a faxed letter accompanying Tallone’s legal filing that “Mr. Tallone maintains that any service under vendor contracts with the City of Trenton were [sic] provided in full and at the lowest bid.”

That’s pretty clear. Tallone got the jobs. It is also pretty clear that the by using the names of other individuals and effort was being made to circumvent the law.

The whole idea of Tallone having submitted the lowest quote is also questionable.

A purchase order issued for the April 2011 event was in the amount of $12,000 for “unlimited” lunches to be served. It was made out not in Mr. Tallone’s name. It was made out in the name of Joseph Gresko but at the address of Mr. Tallone’s residence.

Documents obtained from the city show two other price quotes for providing the lunches for the April 2011 litter march. One was from Heavenly Ham in Mercer Mall for 3000 lunches at $7.00 each ($21,000). The second was from Fred & Pete’s Catering in Mercerville. Again, 3000 lunches but at $6.00 per ($18,000). Note, the number “3000” not “unlimited.”

Why were two of the quotes for 3000 lunches but Mr. Tallone’s was for an “unlimited” amount? Was it to make the bid appear even lower?

Who requested the quotes is not clear but we do know this, the entire Litter March was coordinated and paid for out of the Department of Public Works. Mr. Tallone, as an employee of the Sewer Utility, works in a division of the Department of Public Works. Is it possible Tallone was given access to the other quotes so he could come in with a lower price?

If you do the math, Tallone’s price wasn’t the lowest.

The city provided a roster of 37 “teams” representing 1904 people expected to participate in the litter march. The list noted some “no shows”, dropping the count to 1857 plus "staff". If we round the number up to 2000 people in attendance it’s a full third less than the 3000 lunches in the other quotes. If you divide Tallone’s “lowest” bid of $12,000 by a maximum 2000 attendees it comes out to $6.00 per lunch served. That’s the same amount as the well known Fred and Pete’s Deli was going to charge. It is very unlikely, given the list of 1857 attendees “plus staff” that the number of lunches served reached 2000. Let’s assume the 1857 participants were augmented by 43 “staff”. That brings the total of lunches to 1900. Dividing the $12,000 by 1900 brings the price per lunch to $6.32, higher than the Fred and Pete’s quote.

Interestingly, documents show that Tallone was paid in full for the unlimited lunches on March 29, nearly three full weeks prior to the event. This is another irregularity. Vendors are not usually paid in full prior to delivering the goods or services. We can understand a partial payment to cover the upfront costs of materials, but full payment before delivery should never have occurred. Yet the purchase order was signed off by the then acting director of Public Works, Ralph Burzachiello. There was never a full accounting of the number of lunches served. What if the event had been cancelled due to weather? Would the city have gone back to Tallone and asked for the money back?

A copy of another PO for $8,500 was obtained from the city. This PO was for supplying and serving of “unlimited” continental breakfast for all staff and volunteers the day of the litter march.

The accompanying handwritten quote was broken down into two items. The continental breakfast for an estimated 2500 people at $2.00 per ($5000) and to supply and serve “unlimited” lunch for staff and participants estimated at 700 people extra at $5.00 per head ($3500). This PO was made out to Adele Wright and the address given was that of the condo where Tallone’s son lived.

We know that Ms. Wright was living in Las Vegas at the time, so how come her name is on the PO? Why wasn’t Mr. Gresko’s name used? Was this an attempt to splinter the quotes so that the cost fell below the minimum bid threshold? It should also be noted that this quote, requisition and purchase order were all dated AFTER the April 18 Litter March. So, after the before the fact payment of $12,000, there was an after the fact billing and payment for breakfast and MORE LUNCHES. Sounds like someone was helping himself to healthy seconds from the City's plate! How is it no one in the city finance offices caught that?

Another anomaly in this story is the lack of documentation regarding the vendor providing the food to the city. State law requires any individual or entity to doing business with the local unit to provide a Certificate of Registration. There appear to have been none sought or obtained for Mr. Tallone et al.

When copies of the 1099 forms issued to the vendor(s) for tax reporting purposes were requested, the city stated none had been issued because no Tax ID numbers had been provided. Another violation of law but the city went ahead and repeatedly engaged Mr. Tallone in contracting for the food for the litter march, year after year without reporting his income.

Where were the controls? Who was ignoring or directing to be ignored the most basic rules for purchasing and payment by a municipal government?

The highest levels of management had to know this was going on. How else could so many rules have been overlooked in allowing Tallone to get the contracts?

In 2011, it was acting Public Works Director Ralph Burzachiello who signed the PO for the
lunches.

In 2010, then Public Works Director Eric Jackson signed some of the paperwork submitted under Gresko’s name.

Why hasn’t the MCPO investigated the city side of this issue?

Tallone acknowledges he did the work, yet the PO’s were issued under the names of others. Isn’t that in and of itself fraud? Why was the MCPO’s case so dependent upon the testimony of Ms. Wright that it couldn’t proceed without her? What was Mr. Gresko’s role in all of this? Was the use of his name in combination with different addresses just another attempt to hide the real fact that Tallone was getting the contracts illegally?

A big if
If Mr. Tallone, Mr. Gresko and Ms. Wright actually had some sort of catering business, it was not properly registered with the state. They didn’t provide proper tax identification numbers to the city. Due to Mr. Tallone’s obvious and acknowledged involvement, they are banned from doing work for the city anyway.

How did any of this escape the notice of the department directors and others who had to sign off on the paperwork?

With all of the above unanswered questions it is somewhat understandable that, on the advice of counsel, Mr. Tallone would pay the city $40,000. It seems pretty obvious that any civil action taken by the city against Tallone would result in him having to make restitution for the money gained from his prohibited contracts.

Or does Mr. Tallone think that the current administration would rather give back that $40,000 in the hopes of putting this story to rest without having to answer any of those pesky questions above?

Dave Tallone got his job back. He has reportedly received his back pay. Seems to us he has pretty much been made whole. Why shouldn’t he make restitution to the city for at least some of the money he received through the illegal contracts?

He should leave it as is and drop his lawsuit requesting the return of the money.

Or maybe it would be better for the matter to proceed, publicly, in the courts so the world can see and hear how the successive administrations in the City of Trenton have broken and ignored public contracting laws and how no one, including the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office, has stepped up to take all the parties to task.